I have no problem with strong feedback but this is a week 1 conversation not something to complain about week 4.

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

While I don't completely agree with the opinion that this years game is unexciting, it's definitely not as fast paced as Ultimate Ascent or as violent as Aerial Assault.*

Personally, any game with an objective is thrilling when the bot your team has put blood, sweat, and tears into is on the field and [hopefully] moving.

Granted the sports based games are more prone to get the non robot folks in the stands attention, but is first trying to make robot basketball teams, or frisbee teams?? I don't think so. It is about getting the students to get their minds out of the proverbial box and to think. This game may not have the extreme fast pace, or the defense that some like to see, but it was a good challenge to see what the teams could and did come up with.
To all the complainers you have two choices......1: take the games for what they are and learn all you can learn, and build the "best" bot you can. 2: don't signup for next year cause you will probably find something to complain about then as well.

Personally I am more into watching my students take what they are given and running with it ! Watching the strategy change and unfold as they work with different teams. And most importantly watching them get comfortable outside the box!

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

im gonna be honest and say this game sucks. Worst game in the history of FRC. So boring to watch there are people sleeping in the stands myself included. Frankly it makes me not wanna participate at all. This whole everyone wins, no one loses is what So many people reach for, I heard Woodie talking about it at our first event and it makes for a rather terrible game.

1. this game is the most unfair Job, that has yet to be played, there is no strategic challenge to it and its purely offense. the good robots win uncontested. Our team is a team that never builds a robot like 1114 or 254 that dominates the whole competition if we had to go head to head in an offensive game against any of these "top team" we would lose. we just don't have the resources, people and money to build a robot like that. What makes are team competitive is being able to slow down the opponent so that they are on our level. Last year you could do this. This year not at all your a sitting duck.

2. There are alliances telling there 3rd partner to "sit out or stay on the sidelines" because they will get in the way to me this sounds like the exact opposite of what the GDC was shooting for and what Woodie was preaching at the event. im sure if there were alliances sitting out there 3rd robot last year they didn't make it to far.

3. coopertition ABSOLUTELY SUCKS. another one of the EVERYONE WINS philosophy, obviously this only helps the teams the arnt considered top. looking at the score board you can see 1114 2056 254 they don't score coopertition why would they help the other team score points when they can score more points then a 3 robot alliance can together. Just like in 2012 coopertition makes for an unfair playing field. our team went undefeated in 2012 and was ranked 3rd when we were the only team undefeated, because of this we had to settle with different alliance partners costing us the win. looks to me like advantage

4. EVERYONE WINS PHILOSOPHY what is the GDC woodie and DEAN trying to say when they come up with games and speak of this. I'm sure there aware in the real world people do in fact lose, sports teams lose, people lose there jobs. Life is a competition your always trying to be better then the person your competing with whether its for a job or getting accepted to a collage. I don't understand why they switched from win lose. To no more losing there are teams that are ranked in the top then that really shouldn't be ranked there not to be mean, but got carried through by other teams, yes this happens every year but it is soo much worse this year.

This game takes the C out of FRC it should be called FRG first robotics game cause that's all it is to me now. They went from an AMAZING COMPETITION a year ago where you could make up for a bad robot through a good drive team to a GAME where your pretty much stuck with what you got and you just go out there match after match scoring as many points as you can hoping and praying you get picked by the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd, seed. because if your not you go out there in eliminations knowing you cant do anything to stop the other team from scoring massive points and that your only chance of moving on is if the opponent robot breaks.

Sounds like a pretty horrible game to me, and boy do i hope they never ever ever ever go back to a game like this again. I don't know how many more matches i can take of knowing there is nothing we can do to prevent our-self's from losing besides praying we get lucky with our alliances.

Am i being inconsiderate overly aggressive mean and rude maybe but its america and I am aloud to voice my opinion, and i know im not alone out there in these feelings.This was a major regression step in the direction i believe FIRST wants to proceed towards.

Rant over.

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

Wow, you have much to learn about FRC, and the world in general.

Check out a basic structure of consumer markets - we are the customers, they are the developers - we supply feedback - they iterate - we supply feedback - we like their product after iterations (or are satisfied enough to come back for more).

Take a step back and look at who the "complainers" are too. You'll notice most are veterans from strong teams who carry quite a bit of influence and have been at this for years. Before you post, read their insight and try to soak in their opinions.

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

the violence was my favorite part 3:)

(IE the strategic smashing of our robot into other robots that we called defense and that got us a surprisingly high DPR considering we did not really plan any defense into our design other than our 6 CIM drive. then our robot broke. probably because we smashed into so many other robots. oops)

I like the alliance selection strategy of this year, but miss having an endgame that is completely different from the rest of the challenge (a la 2013's pyramid and 2012's bridges), and I miss defense.

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

I can see that negativity can be a problem - we have had that occur on our team this year and it's rather demoralizing. So I'll try a different approach, asking a question.

What do I say to potential mentor and student recruits about what this year's game is? I used to be able to say, "basketball" or "frisbees". "Working in a warehouse" doesn't seem appealing.

What do you say, while being positive?

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

No it isn't.

Not at all.

Not in the SLIGHTEST.

There is a game so bad (or so ill-documented, your choice) that FIRST doesn't post its summary on their website in the archives. Fortunately, or not, some documentation is preserved by the TechnoKats History Project.

The name? Diabolical Dynamics. The year? 2001. The game? Score playground balls into goals, balance said goals on a seesaw, and get as many of your alliance to the far end of the field as possible before hitting the E-stop for a multiplier. Did I mention that it was played 4v0, with no second alliance on the field?


BTW, #2 on that list happens to be Lunacy (2009). This is a distant #3 at best. I'm still trying to decide whether I prefer Stack Attack (2003) or this game for the #3 spot on the "worst game" list.

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

I won't repeat what's already been stated and I never thought I would ever say this but I miss bumpers. Not just for defense but because it gave all robots a lot more color pop to them and team numbers were way more identifiable. Maybe not as strict of bumper rules as in the past but they at least made teams a lot more identifiable and is a relief from how much gray is in the game whether it be the fields or robots.

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

"Competitive Box Stacking" works pretty well for us.

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

When I first saw this years game, I was definitely kind of disappointed. But after watching some regionals, I think this game has a unique strategy element that games of years past have lacked. I think its a good change of pace, but I would like to see the defense aspect of the games come back.

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

Stacks on stacks. Forklift Simulator.

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

I can't get that 1985 song by Dire Straits out of my head. Money for Nothing.

"We gotta move these refrigerators, we gotta move these color TVs."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAD6Obi7Cag

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

Honestly, this game is pretty good. I don't see what there isint to like. Yes, there is no defense, but are you really just looking to watch the matches? why not marvel at what (hopefully) students built and are using to complete the challenge? Is that not the true point of FRC? Anyways, they are not going to change it, and if you are going to complain, do it somewhere else. Its kind of sad watching the same mentors teaching the students about robotics complain when the challenge or ideal is something they don't like, and its week 4. It wont be changed, they are already thinking of a new game, and if you don't like it, don't play. Simple as that.

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

Well, our team did build a unique laser-cut wooden robot that pushes the envelope of FRC bot construction, so I don't consider the year a waste of time.

I just don't see us taking it to demos. Good thing we saved last year's robot for that job.

I also am considering not signing up for next year, but only because the time sink has gotten too great for me. I can get paid to help people design machines to do warehouse work.