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

But we've never had sports cars! I still say if you came for an exciting game to watch as a spectator then you missed the point. FIRST isn't about spectating it's about involvement. Involvement of kids, mentors, companies, and volunteers. None of the companies who sponsor our team got involved because of the game we are playing, they were impressed by what we students were doing.

The first time I saw any kind of robotics was 2010 championships and when I got there I didn't so much as look a the playing field because I had no idea what was going on. Most outsides looking at FRC never get what's happening on the field unless one of us explains it anyway. Furthermore most games start out with most teams not doing much on days 1 & 2 of the regional this is no different.

Kids may think shooting frisbees is cool but how many would really want to put in the work to build a 2013 bot? The inspiration is in the work the game gives us work and has us trying to improve to beat each other at it. Being a competition and not a science far offers the motivation for us. Most people who spectate pro basketball don't participate and a pro game of basketball is more "exciting" to watch than any year of FRC. Playing the game, FRC or basketball, has a whole lot more to it than the match.

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

Don't take this the wrong way, but you may be missing the point that a lot of us are trying to make: you get more involvement with an exciting competition.

I'm not saying that the students THIS YEAR will be more or less involved - I'm talking about future involvement. If you bring new people to an event and they find it exciting and fun, they are more likely to get involved. On the other hand, if they're bored to tears they're much more likely to think "this is stupid" and find better things to do with their time.

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

My statement was to mean that our involvement and the work we do is what gets people looking into STEM and supporting stem based education not how the matches look. The competition being exciting is one reason we might stay involved and there is more to the excitement than how much happens in a mach.

FRC matches never look "cool" to outsiders at lower and medium levels of play and usually not even at high levels. That aspect is no different than years past. This challenge is great and the competition is as good as its ever been.

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

Excellent article. Congrats on your team's win.

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

This game reminds me of a bowling tournament with 3-person teams. You are rewarded for being able to perform the same task (manipulating a heavy object) in the same setting (at least for chute loaders), over and over again without messing up. What happens on the next lane over has little impact on your game. Now with "Cheese-caking", its like a bowling tournament where the best bowler gets to throw the second ball for the weakest bowler.

I do like the engineering challenge. Its a nice departure from handling spheres or inflated tubes, and the robot rules have given teams an opportunity to think outside the normal box.

I can handle the different tournament format and lack of direct interaction once in a while, but I hope it isn't the new norm.

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

I will counter your anecdote-based opinion with my own anecdote. I've been fieldside for a number of high-profile outsider guests these past few weeks, and it is much worse than last year or particularly 2013 (also 2012). They're not as engaged, don't get caught up in the action, don't watch as long, and make decidedly unexcited comments about how hard this must be.

Now that we both have anecdotes, can we stop asserting their conclusions as fact?

If you'd like to recall your own anecdotes, I'd like to suggest the TBA Approach. Pick your favorite event and your favorite number (under ~70). Watch that match from 2015, 2014, 2013 and 2012 (a current senior's career in FIRST). I just did Match 40 at Week 1 Hatboro-Horsham.

2015 Week 1 HH Match 40
2014 Week 1 HH Match 40
2013 Week 1 HH Match 41 (40 is missing)
2012 Week 1 HH Match 40

There's no correct answer as to which one you enjoy more, but it might be an interesting exercise regardless.

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

I have to disagree, several games have looked cool and were fun to watch (2012 for example). In college, most of my friends really didn't care about engineering but LOVED watching matches with great defense, a solid objective, and an exciting end game. I showed some footage of this year's competition to a few people at work who were interested in FIRST and they declared it "boring" and "confusing". One even commented that watching our fork lift driver move pieces of basketball court was more interesting than watching robots try to stack boxes. They then turned it off. I hate saying it but at the end of the day this is a boring game UNLESS you are on a team, in which case I guess it could be fun because it's your robot out there?

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

1st 2013
2nd 2014
3rd 2015,2012 tie

That's how interesting those matches were in order, and I was getting into the 2015 one more (probably because were playing it now). My point is an outsider looking at any match here wouldn't decide to get into STEM by virtue of the match alone. I think the better way to illustrate this is to imagine watching week one match one of 2014 and Einstein finals vs week one match one of 2015 and finals at Ontario this year. The relative reaction would be the same. A good 2015 match can be as good as a good 2012-13-14 match. If the robots are all doing really good bystanders can tell and will react accordingly. If the match ends with a few stray totes here and there it can be confusing as to what they were trying to do. If 1114 comes in and cleans up the field you will have a good example of both the objective and how it can be accomplished.

Basically I think this game is harder and thus you will see less high level play. High level play is exciting in any sport. Also the absence of a hole or box to shoot things through makes it more difficult to see the end goal with no fore knowledge. For instance if in 2013 one robot shot only 3 discs and made two the whole match you knew what they wanted to do (put disk in rectangle). In 2015 if a robot only gets 4 totes at all and one falls off the stack you may not know they wanted them there (what if the platform just looked like an obstacle?). Also I think everyone is to used to shooting and defending. Bottom line is if we all played like we wish we did matches would all look better and be more obvious to the outsider every year.

And TLDR because none of that is what makes you decide to do STEM. It's our job to get new people in the door not the GDC. Dean needs us to make it loud no matter whats going on at the field. The game is not bad.

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

I find that when I talk to folks about FIRST and this year's game, the spin I put on it is huge.... I generally talk about the process - the six week build and how we never know what game we are playing until that first Saturday of the New Year. I mention all the different sorts of games we've played.... They then eagerly ask what this year's game is.... I word my answer something like this: "Well, this year, the game committee took a little away from teh game from a spectator's perspective and gave us a brutally difficult engineering challenge - the hardest one since I've been involved." I then go on to talk about attempting to stack those totes and can 8-10 feet high (six totes + RC + noodle).

I find they are still interested. I do acknowledge, however, that the game does not generate the same "wow" factor as our FCS did in 2013 or our free-throw shooter did in 2012.... Still, my students and I are enjoying the challenges this year.

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

Looks like I'm not the only one who sees this task as not exactly exciting to the causal observer. I do see some thoughtful comments about the value of the challenge, with which I agree. But it still sounds like a job.

I would love to be watching our robot compete in Chandler at Arizona East this weekend, but I am currently waiting for my older son's appendectomy to be performed. Maybe I'll get to be there for the eliminations.

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

Firstly, the GDC is our version of product design. It is always the job of designers (GDC) to create an appealing product that consumers (teams), so as to attract enough consumers to increase profits (which don't have to be monetary profits). We hold it on them to create a game that attracts the interest of competitors and spectators alike, like Apple expects the iPhone team to produce an iPhone that consumers want to buy. This extends past just recruiting new members. You can't market the "Sport for the Mind" if the sport is competitive box stacking, and you can't expect sponsors (especially new sponsors) to donate to a team that basically builds a miniature forklift, because there are already forklifts. It'd be like me investing in your company to invent the wooden wheel; it has already been done.

Secondly, and I CANNOT STRESS THIS ENOUGH, it isn't about what Dean wants or needs us to do. I have the utmost respect for Dean for starting something huge, and something that I love. However, FIRST is a community larger than one man, and we should be making it loud for students, for teams, for schools, for our friends, for our generation, and for our future, not because one man needs us to. This is a point that I cannot stress enough. Dean is awesome, but if you do things because Dean says you should, you are missing part of the point.

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

You weren't around for 2008, so I'll give you a pass on that. What you missed: In 2008, the GDC gave us a game in which the objective was to go around and around a track, pushing and/or throwing large balls (bigger than last year's, and arguably one of the biggest game pieces FRC has ever seen) as you went. The more laps, the more points. Some teams built robots for speed and maneuverability rather than attempting to handle the large balls. BTW, this was NASCAR style: direction of travel was a left-hand turn.

Incidentally, 2008, like 2014, was a heavily-penalized year. Teams would get penalties for turning in place if they weren't careful, on occasion. (They'd violate some rule about position/crossing a line, or be seen to be doing that even though they weren't.) The next year, we got Lunacy with very few interaction rules. This time through the cycle, it was Aerial Assist followed by Recycle Rush. 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 oughtta be good years for spectator involvement if we are in fact on a roughly 6-year cycle of increasing penalties, followed by a year of very few penalties in reaction to massive penalties the previous year.

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

Sponsors
I got five new sponsors this year who are just fine with box stacking and put in thousands worth of machining, money, engineering advice, tools and more. They and our returning sponsors do not care about the game. They care about what the students get from competing and building the robot. In fact all five of our new sponsors agreed to help before the game came out because the excitement of the game is not the important part of FIRST. It's the people and what we do to make matches happen. They wanted to help us kids gain the knowledge and skills needed to do well in whatever game came out. They were confident that whatever it was it would demand the knowledge and skills that FRC always has.

Recruitment
If this game not being like 2013-14 negatively affects your recruitment somehow it's because you could only talk about how bad the games are. Instead of that try to remember all the work you put in and the things you learned to get the robot to the field in the first place.

Learning?
I guess I forgot that learning anything technical was on the back burner to the FRC community compared to how cool the game is. Yea I know that's quite cynical.

Word choice
I said Dean because the first time I remember hearing that phrase in reference to FIRST was when he mentioned it at 2013 champs because I was there. That is what came to mind so that's what I said.

Lastly, It's our job to get new people in the door not the GDC. If we can't even make the experience of building the robot seem attractive why would anyone join and stay on FRC team in the first place?

Game this year is great! I love it!

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

Ask someone if they want world champion FRC robot or a BMW M3...

We are here in huge part because STEM related things are under appreciated. Building that appreciation means nothing if it isn't based on what it really takes to do what we do. Most of our work is not to be on the field in front of the crowd. That's the goal, to do our best out there. What we do to get there is what we want people to appreciate. Would we say we are promoting stem if 10,000 spectators came to a regional because the games were so amazing to watch but participation never rose again?

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

Has everyone seen Dr. Randy Pausch's "Last Lecture", if not, I highly recommend it. You can see it here:
https://youtu.be/j7zzQpvoYcQ

It's a inspirational message about how people learn - and it was actually his last lecture - he meant to leave that as his legacy to his children. Anyways, in it, he talks about head-fake. In which, he teaches someone an important lesson that they might not know to learn (or care to) by showing them something else that they might have an interest in instead.

Anyways, I see the FIRST world as two different types of people - and no, this isn't a joke about the binary counting system. Type A is the people who already come in with some interest or appreciation for metal work, hand tools, electrical wiring, programming, or just plain old STEM. These people are either standing at the thresholding waiting to be invited in or have already boldly stride through. Our work as mentors is to groom them and "mentor" them - keep them interested, reveal to them the rest of the wonder, etc. There are also adults who are in this category and they are ready to jump in enthusiastically to help, to pitch in with support, etc.

But those aren't necessarily the people I'm talking about. I am talking about the Type B people. They have no interest in this stuff - nobody has shone them and they might not even care. Here's the head-fake, I show them a sports game - that he/she can relate to. We can talk about how exciting these things can get. How much sports there is and look at all of these young people, parents, and mentors all very much engaged, etc... While they are enjoying all of this and nodding, I take them to the workshop and the pit where everybody are furiously working towards a common goal - show them all of the GP and coopertition that's happening... Head faked again... because all of that exciting stuff that we just shared and enjoyed out of the field happens because of all of this other stuff that happens here - now we all have an understanding. "Bud, I need your help", etc. ,etc... Sometimes people can learn to appreciate something that they haven't before if you can show them some common ground and a powerful shared vision - eventhough they had completely no interest in it in the first place.

We are not just trying to reach Type A folks, we need to bring in Type B folks too... In my case, I have to, because most of the town are Type B folks - absolutely no interest. But hey, if I can show them a basketball-like game, or soccer-like game, I just might be able to head-fake them into it.

It's sooo much harder when they think what's going on out on the field is a snore.

(and again, I am completely fine with whatever engineering type challenges that are put out by our fine GDC folks at FIRST. The Type A folks we have will eat it up either way. It's the Type B folks that will always make it a challenge; and some years it's just harder.)

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

I wish... see this thread ;) : http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=135888

The game design and how matches look aren't it it's the fact that we are competing with each other. The excitement of doing well and winning. Then there is wanting to do better than what you are seeing. Competing with others always gets people excited.

The matches being exciting has more to do with how well we do in them. The more we score the more exciting it will be. Furthermore a low scoring match in 2012-14 probably looked better than this year. You have to do a bit more proportional to the current challenge for it to look as good. A few 2-3 stacks and the stray tote here or there doesn't look as good. That said Getting 2-3 caped 4-6 tote stacks looks pretty good. In that case the game design has less to do with it than robot performance, which is determined by competitors. I think this game is harder too.

Game is great. Recycle Rush hype!

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

If I had the choice between a BMW M3 and 1114's Simbot Sideswipe (in the beautiful red powder coat)... hmmm... ! ;)

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

I know that many and most teams take the game and the regionals super-serious. We compete at our hardest too, but we focus on other aspects: the design, the building of the robot, how we organize and run our team at the event, how we partner up with our alliances, how we create and run the strategy, how we treat each other as people.... Win, Lose, Draw, we have fun. I truly have no gripes with the game from the team internal perspective - I am not overly concerned with the scoring mechanisms; it could be building a competitive rubber-stamping or dish-washing machine for all I care (edited: not that I don't care about what the GDC does or share their enthusiasm. It's just not really a main sole focus.). I really want the students in the team to focus on the process and themselves as the product.

The Robot and the game :] that's just another head-fake.... Do we get excited about the build season and getting to Regionals - heck, yeah. Do we take it seriously - absolutely... but not in that way though.

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

I can only claim to be speaking for myself in this, but I'm not going to be able to attend SVR this year due to work stuff. While I'm sorry for not being able to volunteer, and to meet my former team and experience the atmosphere of an FRC regional, for the last couple years I would have also been upset about not being able to watch amazing teams play fun games. This year? Uhh, not so much.

I'm continually confused by the people here making excuses and trying to claim in various ways that the game being boring isn't important. Why are you here? Have you ever listened to even one of Dean's speeches? There are few things less important to FRC. I would honestly be surprised if next year isn't the worst for rookie retention in a long time due largely to this game. Anyone willing to argue that that isn't important?

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

I'd argue that Recycle Rush is more thrilling than a Dean speech. :rolleyes:

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

Protip: don't use Dean's speeches as recruiting tools. ;)

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

World Champ FRC robot... but I cheat, I already have a BMW 3 series and don't want the fuel costs of the M3.

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

1. How good matches look is determined by how well the robots preform.

2. A good looking match is not necessary to inspire interest in STEM.

3. Guys just take the car, sell it, and buy robot parts! Meanwhile the point was most not FIRST people would go watch a race rather than the 08 game anyway and would take the car over the robot.

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

What I found very surprising about this years is that it actually more accurately mirrors competitive events in the real world then any of the past games. Ever watch the world cup? Ever watch 3 year olds play soccer? In the real world there is no "curving", "blue shell", or "balancing mechanic." One of the issues the GDC has is that it needs a game that doesn't just shred teams that for whatever reason cannot design and build to the highest level. Its easier to inspire when you can step up to the field instead of being shoved off because you aren't competitive. When you add these training wheels to a game so everyone can participate then yes it might come off a bit dull.

But real talk for just a second.
Ask yourself what you find exciting about this experience.
Maybe its that you like the action provided by the game and the positive environment. Its colorful, its loud, its fun. You spent so much time working and now you can show off and flex a little.
Or maybe you do what I do. I go out on the field and I stare at this heap of metal, wires, and plastic that embodies all the work that was done by these students and I feel a rush because somehow, (mostly through mountain dew) we made it.
At the end of the day the game is what brought us to the location, but its the people that got the party started.

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

I wasn't trying to say that Dean's speeches are boring, just that he himself has emphasized how FRC being exciting is important.

As for your argument... Hmm, I think it depends on what teams are playing...:yikes:

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

I couldn't agree more. While it gives us the freedom of no boundaries and an ability to strategize, the real world goal is blatently obvious what they're trying to get out of this game.

Allow me to elaborate.

In past years the game was sports. Acquire and fire. If there was a goal or an engineering concept that they wanted to get out of it, it was fairly well hidden. This year it seems like they made no attempt to hide it. It doesn't feel like a game, it doesn't feel the same as past years. The best design is already out there -- a forklift. That's why it's used in industry, because it works the best. They wouldn't be so widely popular if they weren't. And what kinds of teams are we seeing reaching the finals, semi-finals, and quarter-finals? Forklifts.

For most teams, getting rookies and little kids involved will be very difficult with this year's robot. It's not fun; it's not exciting. Seeing a forklift operate isn't nearly as exciting to a little kid as seeing a giant ball being thrown, or shooting frisbees/soccer balls/basketballs toward them. They can interact with the robots then, they can get involved. The most they're going to be able to get involved with the robot this year is putting a noodle in the RC.

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

I agree with your warehouse reference. At the beginning of the season I was like "This game is gonna be way worse then last year". But after watching a few regionals, I think the rules change is a great change of pace. I also have interesting thoughts on how they are scoring it this year (from previous WLT to using team averages) << I don't know how I like/dislike this yet.

The thing I dislike the most is how this game only requires the team to basically do 1 task/motion (lifting/moving stacks) vs previous years (like ultimate ascent, where teams could climb the pyramid, shoot frisbees, or push frisbees) where the GDC gave teams more of a challenge and let them chose which one to focus on.

Overall, I think this game is a game of FIRSTS heh and the GDC is experimenting with changing things up.

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

Hey David, is it looking more like a fun game now?

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

Our team has certainly earned 50-cents-an-hour raises.

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

Well, if you win the finals, you may get healthcare too. As long as you're not......

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

OMG what a great F1.

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

Well, they won.

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

I am happy to say that we did manage to win the Arizona East regional with our amazing partners 3944 and 4146.

There was an actual tussle over a can in the last final match, in which we lost the can but won the match in the end.

Therefore, it's a game after all.

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

In the most minimalist sense of the term, yes I suppose it is a game.

On an unrelated note, if we take some bleachers and lights and put it in a warehouse we essentially have the same things as this game. Alright guys, let's see how many ways we can pick up these pallets!

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

There are many quite apparent weapon systems applications of the target and fire nature of the previous games.

So much so that they have inspired the interest of military solution providers.

The controls of military drones are also quite well considered for the experienced video game players.

I suppose military applications are pretty exciting but I guess it depends on the job you want to contribute to.

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

"Winning makes it more fun" -- unknown Mentor.

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

Honestly, I don't think the best word to describe this year's competition is "Job," or "game." The best one-word description that I can think of is "challenge."

Before I go on to rant, I'll define a few things.
According to Mariam-Webster...

Game- activity engaged in for diversion or amusement, often involving strategy and/or competition
Challenge- a stimulating task or problem OR a summons that is often threatening, provocative, stimulating, or inciting

Think about it. In earlier years, apart from Rebound rumble's center bridge, a successful team won not by not necessarily beating the game per se, but by beating the enemy alliance. 2013, most of 2012, 2011, and especially 2014 were all games that were generally considered more fun to watch, and focused more on strategy and competition instead of provoking a problem. Sure, designing a great robot is no small feat for any competition, but in those years, strategy was a huge part of the game, and the robots directly competed against each other for victories. Those competitions fit the "game" definition more than the "Challenge" definition.

Fast forward to 2015. Sure, this year's game is fun to play, and teams do compete against each other and develop strategy like FIRST has emphasized for a long while, but it's who, or in this case, what, teams competed against that drove me to my conclusion. In this game, teams didn't compete against each other in qualifications for the most part. Often, they helped each other. However, they did compete against the field. The challenge really was out to kill this year: the landfill is always cluttered with litter, the tote chute is unreliable, and the cans are relatively difficult to grip and lift to scoring levels. No matter how one slices it, the word "problem" or "puzzle" certainly fit the bill here.

This really shouldn't be a surprise. FIRST has been hinting at this for years now that teams should be working with each other instead of against each other through Gracious Professionalism, and this challenge, as I see it, was a manifestation of those values. A challenge like this was almost inevitable.

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

I have a feeling that the reason robots cannot cross the step is because last year in AA, there were so many bad calls on the referee side for pinning, ramming, or "repeated ramming", as well as the overwhelmingly large numbers of teams that were aggressive in competition.

I predict bumpers and alliance competition will be back next year.

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

We really hope soo

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

Win, Lose, Draw, we have fun. .[/quote]

Our team continues to grow each year because we try to make learning fun... this year's challenge is no different. On one hand, our student's liked the idea that there wasn't any 'defensive bots' on the field to worry about. They found prototyping, designing, building and programming challenging and enjoyable. On the other hand, once they started competing, they found some less exciting aspects to this year's game. Really good teams (those stacking 5 or 6 totes with a bin) were encouraging some alliances to 'stay out of their way'; coopertition stacks were discouraged by many teams because it was difficult to do so; and the lack of defense (at least in prior years they could at least drive around and cause some chaos) or rely on robots in their alliance to do so. This year those that built a really efficient robot are virtually unstoppable because there isn't any defense (okay litter sometimes got in the way). Our students are continually problem-solving to make our robot perform and pick up reliably (we'll see at our next competition...can't wait.. should be awesome). But when all said and done... our team had a really good time and they made the best out of the experience.

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

An important difference between 2014 and 2015: Many fewer teams can compete at the same level as 1114 this year vs. last year. The proof is in the distribution of the OPRs. The OPRs are much more skewed this year than in the past. That reflects the increases technical difficulty. It also makes for a much less competitive game. Lack of true competition eventually turns off spectators. Ask both golf (Woods) and track & field (Bolt).

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

What I have appreciated and enjoyed about this year's challenge is how many different approaches can be taken to solving the same problem. A previous poster said "They're all forklifts" but that is not even really true, 1114 is not a forklift-based design and kudos to them for coming up with a machine that solves the problem with such speed and consistency. Watching their robot in action is mesmerizing.

Even among the "forklift-class" robots, there is such variation in each design and it is fun to see which designs work better than others. It is neat to see how all the teams took the same functional requirements and distilled them into mostly the same operational parameters, but implemented them slightly differently.

This does mean that it is a "breadth" of interesting things that doesn't have a lot of "depth". That is, once you've seen a robot in action, you know pretty much exactly what to expect in every match going forward.

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

I'm going to somewhat disagree with this, or at least add another explanation that also contributes to the increased OPR disparity this year.

No Defense (or No Defence in 1114's case)

Every year prior, the big name teams would have a gigantic target on their back, which invited every team to try to do their best to stop them. In years past, 1114 would see waaaaay more defense played against them than any middle of the road team. That naturally keeps the OPRs a little tigher: as soon as teams see you breaking away from the pack, they'll defend you harder to bring you back.

This year, there's nothing you can do to slow 1114 down. Therefore, for the first year ever they've had unimpeded access to do whatever they want to do. I'd almost argue that if defense was banned every year, there would have been similar disparities in OPR in the past.

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

The nature of this year's game is also a very valid reason for the step.

Think about it, how could anyone put up any substantial scores if after every time a team made a stack, the opposing alliance knocked it over? The rules against "puppy guarding" stacks would probably be better off avoided through the use of the step.

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

Another example of skewed data is the range of Auto points being earned this year. Either you're a team with a 20 pt auto (there tend to be 1 or maybe 2 teams per regional this year) or you receive no auto points...maybe if you get a good alliance the big 4 pts. At some regionals, if you take out the top two scoring auto teams, the average amount of auto pts. per team is less than one point. This only reinforces the idea of this game being a skills challenge, rather than a game.

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

And here in FIRST we've never seen THAT before...::rtm::

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

So maybe this has been said before, but I have a new perspective on this game after competing. Don't worry, I still think it's terrible.

Our team made an improbable run to the 8th alliance captain position and picked a solid alliance of three middle tier robots. Our strategy was essentially to gamble that the three teams working together were worth more than the sum of their parts. 870 would make their usual capped stack of five, then cap one of our stacks of five. 1111 would get the center bins in autonomous, then go for their own capped stack, while we would go for two stacks of five. If 1111 had extra time, they could cap our second stack. It was far from a guarantee but it put the strengths of each partner together and made for our best shot out of the quarters. The main problem is that it requires perfect play from all 3 robots.

Two seconds into our autonomous mode of our first quarterfinal match, the power cable from the roboRio to our PDP wiggles loose as we hit the scoring platform, and we're out for the match, excluding 2 seconds of false hope in the middle of it. As you might expect, the entire strategy falls apart when one member of the alliance isn't there, and we were the team that created scoring opportunities for our partners.

Any other year, it's a tragic loss, but not an insurmountable one - you can win the next two to move on. But at this event, we were in a situation where, two seconds after our very first match started, it immediately became impossible for us to win the regional. The score we would need to move on after getting nearly no points that match was impossibly large, and not even the best teams at the event ever scored that many points.

I did my best to keep everyone's spirits up and rally the alliance to score as high as they could their second match, saying it wasn't impossible to move on, but a few of the drivers just knew that we were going to be out on the field playing a completely pointless match. The energy of the alliance was down, and everyone was at least a little rattled from the previous match, so we didn't play optimally match 2 either. Not that it mattered; again, it was a completely pointless match.

I don't think there's anything less inspiring than having your fate sealed by an unforeseeable hiccup, then being forced to play a pointless match that leaves you no chance of advancing. We installed that wire correctly, we performed the standard pull test and solidly connected the wire at home. Short of running a multimeter to every wired connection on our robot before every match, there's nothing we could have done to prevent this. And as soon as it happened, it was over. There was no way to win the event anymore, the second match was just for show.

I gave this game a lot of chances - I thought it was a very fun engineering challenge. I wasn't my normal cynical self during build season, hoping things would work out. But that elimination tournament was like a kick to the gut. Have you ever lost a regional in the first two seconds of eliminations? Should that even be possible? I really think it shouldn't be. This game would be dramatically improved if the best 2 of 3 match scores were what determined if you moved on or not. There's no room for error - on your part, on the field's part, or just plain bad luck.

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

The scoring mechanic they took is normally used in single player games. A game where the goal is to rack up a highscore independent of an opponents interaction is a very interesting choice when the past pattern points at it being more and more spectator friendly. One thing this game accomplished well is the diversity it brought in for robot designs.
Start with scoring and that you need to create stacks of totes, yes it is one scoring mechanic but there are many ways it can be accomplished. Internal stacking, external stacking. Mix in the different ways you can gather resources to score and you have all sorts of ways the game can be played.
Last years game was very linear in how it was played and that was really boring walking through the pits and seeing roughly the same thing over and over again.

Also personal belief.
Numerical values are not and should not be used as direct reflection on a games health (fun, difficulty, audience appeal).

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

It's hard to argue with the fact that this game is better with the step than it would be without the step.

That's a reason to trash the concept, not add the step.

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

If that's what you get out of "Gracious Professionalism", then I think you're misunderstanding what FIRST is trying to say. Although hey, they put out this game, maybe I'm the one that doesn't get them. Wouldn't be the first time...

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.

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

Beyond that (the discussion we've had), this game exacerbates the problem by taking away a lot of the "way points" to success:

This is a very difficult engineering challenge. And difficult engineering challenges happen in life. I've got one in another window of my computer right now. But FIRST is not about that. FIRST says outright that it's not about that. It's about Inspiration and Recognition. And huge challenges that don't have intermediate goals tend to be less effective inspirational tools.

It is very, very difficult--every year--to help a team that really doesn't understand what's going on. Think about how much work you put into your build season and events. Think about the burnout that's discussed on CD regularly. Now think about doing that without anyone else who knows how to build a robot. Now think about doing that when the only way to contribute is to meet an engineering challenge that's even harder than the seasons your used to.

We can push to help teams. We do push to help teams. (For crying out loud, you [jman] are talking to a guy for 1678.) But it is hard. I say that because I do it, and it's difficult. And game designs like this do not help; making it more difficult to inspire helps no one. That's is not to say that we shouldn't have major engineering challenges in FRC. I seem to recall the GDC deciding that we should climb a 10 foot tall pyramid like freaking monkeys a while back. Setting aside the problems with point scaling, I rather enjoyed that challenge. Actually, it drove me completely nuts, but seeing our robot 10 feet in the air over Einstein was entirely worth it. And yet it would've been a really miserable season if that was the only thing to do.

Can our team community step up and do more? Yes, of course, always. But so can the GDC. The GDC is part of this community: they're its leaders in many ways, and they're the standard bearers for its goals. Why shouldn't they help in their own way?

Big challenges have big rewards. That doesn't mean we don't need small challenges.

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

Not to nitpick, but did you mean "presence" here? If not, can you please rephrase this sentence?

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

FIRST is about inspiration. The simple fact is that for teams, especially rookie / less powerful teams, not being able to contribute = not as inspiring.

I'm not saying it's not amazing to watch 1114 or any other great team. It is. I've spent hours tracking down webcasts to watch the top teams compete to see how they approached this challenge and am still in awe. But if FIRST's goal is to reach as many students as possible and inspire them, this game makes it hard.

There will always be teams that struggle. There will always be top teams that try their best to help them. (Please, your original post was to a mentor on 1678. If they don't do everything they can to help other teams, I don't know who does.) But there are also games that make it easier, games with smaller goals that those teams can be guided to do, games that give every alliance member something to contribute to.

EDIT: Just read Siri's post (which I just saw)...it says what I was trying to say more eloquently.

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

I didn't say you weren't but clearly there's not enough in general. How's having easier challenges in the game any more inspirational? Being stuck at a one point goal doesn't feel or look any better. Small challenges have small rewards and that's not inspiring. Having challenging challenges gives you more to shoot for and gives you a reason to keep improving.

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

I'm expecting April 25th to be as insane! I can't wait!

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

Small challenges are not inspiring to you. That's okay, because they're small to you. They are not small to everyone, and failing at personally insurmountable tasks isn't inspiring. Have you ever helped a team get a consistent low goal score? It 'feels' (and quite frankly, looks) a lot better than consistently missing the high goal, or sitting there because you don't have the mechanism. It can be an important contribution. Success that you did not otherwise have is inspiring.

That doesn't mean stop striving, but it does mean you've achieved something you previously could not. Why do we have progressions in real life? Just let 4th graders take the ACTs all the time, they're scores will eventually get better. We don't, because there's other value in tracking lesser progress and providing interim goals that are still valuable.

The GDC has a difficult job doing this for a huge spectrum of team abilities. No joke. But they have done it before, even consistently. This year, the plot of Game Mechanic Difficulty vs. Inspiration/Contribution is...unique. That's why we end up with discussions like this, and others about how to help teams contribute, and cheesecake food fights, and tethered boat anchors. These are not community effects; they're game ones. They change with game design, and there are good things about this year's curve. This really isn't one of them.

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

I concur.

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

No, it's not difficult - it's over. In the past, best of 3 allowed you to have one big screwup in a match like a robot dying and still have a fighting chance until the end of the final match in your set. In this game, depending on which robot dies, a single mistake at the very beginning will just end your regional.

The whole point of my post is that, while in the past this failure was a frustrating experience that an alliance would need to work really hard to come back from, in this year it's very often literally impossible to do so. We're no strangers to catastrophe in Quarterfinal 1 - it's just that in other years, we had some ability to come back from it and fix it. This year, done, might as well go home, except here you still have to play a completely pointless match, have fun.

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

How about getting pitted against the 1st seeded alliance in the traditional eliminations? What about losing a robot once you're already down a match? There are several scenarios in previous years that yielded the same result. If you've got a solid alliance this year, you'll do well; if you're inconsistent, you won't.

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

There are ways to keep those advantages and minimize the damage of Chris' point.

Add 4 more quarterfinals, drop the lowest score from each. Drop the lowest score of each team in the semis as well.

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

http://leadwithastory.com/top-10-dif...-and-robotics/

Okay read that.

First posted here: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...hreadid=136064 by the way.

None of that was dispirited or uninspired. This exactly captures my point about why FRC is inspirational and why Recycle Rush is not a detriment to the program.

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

I'm going to disagree that the greatest robots are actually especially interesting this year precisely because of the reason you mention (that top teams go and do the 'same' thing every match)...

What made the Einstein Finals in 2010 and 2014 so extra-interesting were the fact that those forms of defense (1114 trying to block 254's auto in 2014 or 1114&469 teaming up in 2010) were against something everyone was expecting... against teams so successful and consistent that everyone wondered (skeptically) how they could be stopped. We all expected 254 to run their fabulous 3-ball auto... the question was how to defend it, since it's so reliable and parked in front of a low goal. In 2010, we all knew 469 was going to drive to the tunnel in auto and re-cycle the balls while 1114 fed the cycle... most people thought 469 and 1114 winning in 2010 was a foregone conclusion. But when 67 just played the midfield game so spectacularly in an 'ordinary' way, 177 assisted, and 294 did their best to snarl up 469's cycle, and then things just didn't go quite right for 469 and 1114 (2041 got stuck in the goal; 294 was highly effective), everyone watched in shock as the alliance of 67-294-177 won.

FIRST needs 'iconic' top teams to be like a sport. In professional sports, the game is the same year to year, and the seasons are long so we all get to know what makes someone special... what they're better at than anyone else or what their Acchiles Heal is... that way at the Super Bowl or in the World Series there is a story anticipating the event. But, the FRC game changes every year, so the top teams that make it to Einstein need to re-write their story every year... be so fabulous and so consistent that everyone in FRC knows what to expect on Einstein, despite a short competition season... that way when a team get's toppled doing their 'tried and true' or they have to deviate to counter an opponent, it is that much more exciting.

Besides, high-level elimination matches this year will be overwhelmingly intense... down-to-the-wire in the quarters and semis too, because each alliance is facing every other alliance, fighting to get those last few points to bump up their QA... I agree with Koko Ed, April 25th will be one wild day.

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

this would fix playoffs. Isn't this used in X-games?

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

Moderators Note: It would be great if people could make their points in this thread without using slang terms for urination. Posts such as these have been and will be deleted. Refer to the forum rules if you any questions.

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

My bad, and I apologize.

This game is hard enough to explain to the audience already.

Come on, CD community, this game won't be changing. It's fine as it is.
It has addressed past complaints and yet, still, we are not happy with it?

To repeat an old saw. It is not about the Robot. See the forest, smell the roses, etc....
This thread has stomped on my buzz.

Try to enjoy these last few weeks and revel in how the strategies have evolved, instead of kvetching about how we wish the world would be.
Witness how three mediocre Robots can defeat the highest seeds by developing a clever game plan where the sum is greater than the parts.

/Rant over.

tl;dr people who wake up saying it's going to be a bad day are always right.

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.

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

For the main part, I will have to agree with the bulk of the crowd. Compared to last years game, this was a slight letdown. But as a rookie, this game was actually quite exciting. My team, 1086 Blue Cheese competed at the Virginia Regional, and my throat still hurts from all the cheering and screaming I did. I say that this is a pretty good game (minus the whole "no offense" aspect.)

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

No offense, but I think you meant "no defense".

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

I see what you did there.

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

It happened once ;)

I'm not sure why St. Joseph videos didn't get posted on firstinmichigan's YouTube channel. I hope it's still coming - they put up the first 4 qualification matches, and then... hrm.

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

Ahhh... that's why I didn't see it on the FiM youtube site.

Even still, 3452 was ranked 3rd, 469 had already made it to the Finals after seeded outside the top 10 (at Woodhaven), and that alliance led the scoring throughout the playoffs. I'd hardly call that an upset.