I didn't say i agreed with either side. I simply said I don't want this to be yet another argument thread over whether this game is good or bad.

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

I know what you're trying to get at here, but in the latest version of Mario Kart, they heavily balanced the blue shell with the game changes. The blue shell stays on the ground and has a chance of hitting everyone. Additionally, there is a new item, the Horn, which can be used to prevent the blue shell from hitting you in first place (among other things). This update to Mario Kart puts a strong strategic focus on item management, incentivising holding onto items for the right moment rather than spamming them as soon as you get one. It proves that with creative thinking, even the most ridiculous of game mechanics can be iterated and improved upon.

I know this is really tangential, but I think there's merit to considering how we can iterate on even the most unconventional of game mechanics. I don't think a no-interaction game is fundamentally guaranteed to be awful, but both of the attempts that FRC has made on the concept had some pretty significant flaws.

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

The event that precipitated this thread was an encounter with one of my fellow engineers at my day job in the radio astronomy factory where I work.

He was holding a calibration hot-load slider mechanism in his hands, and I mentioned that we build stuff exactly like that for our robots, Bimba cylinders and all. He asked me what this year's game was, and I tried to describe the tote stacking stuff. He said, "Jenga?" I said, "No, more like working in a warehouse."

But you know, Jenga would be a really fun game to play with robots!

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

The title of this topic is ironic:

I build things for a living.
Watching these things actually in production is like watching your child take their first steps.

So why would it be a bad thing that what the competition does is teach us something actually applicable & useful?

Would we be as negative about game theory?

If only you could aspire to do what you love, even if it's not just a game.

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

I suspect it was also brought on by the need to give the excellent volunteer refs a big contrast to their extreme workload last year. If I were a ref and went through two consecutive years like 2014, I'd probably not be back again-- at least not as a ref.

The change also gave inspectors a big break, because bumpers. Bumpers consumes a lot of inspection bandwidth.

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

KelliV and Robochik1319 express a view more reflective of the target audience of FIRST. Dean invented this sport to attract students who otherwise would not look to STEM through excitement. Students like you would have just gone into some other STEM activity and pretty much ended up where you will be. You're an important part of FIRST because you can impart your knowledge to those students who weren't attracted until they saw something exciting, like our team captain from 2013 who switched from being a fashion designer to a mechanical engineer. This is about transforming how others seem STEM opportunities, not how they are today.

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

Sounds like 2015 Traverse City. Rank going into semis was ordered 1, 8, 2, 7.

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

People were moaning about defense last year? I remember people moaning about how the GDC tried to regulate defense last year. (Who wanted that unscheduled G27 game update?) I remember people complaining that the GDC had designed a game that overemphasized defense by saying "I wonder what happens if we put three robots on each alliance but only let one play offense at a time?" And then tried make the overburdened refs force it in line with their vision. But I don't remember anyone complaining that defense existed last year. No one, that is, except the GDC itself. And they (at least from my perspective as a coach and ref) were much, much, much, much, much louder about it than any other complaint about anything I heard all season.

I'm not saying that no one outside the GDC did complain about defense. I'm sure people did, and for understandable reasons. I'm just saying that it's only inherently hypocritical if you consider the community to be a monolith, which it definitely is not.


In terms of this game, I understand that each game design has different merits. From a team perspective, everything is a challenge and is potentially acceptable as such. This is not to say that you can't complain about whatever you want. Or that you shouldn't be upset when your ~$2000 minibot R&D gets cloned en masse for $50. Or that you can't pretend a game doesn't exist if it was basically one big charlie foxtrot on ice. But I'd like to propose two first-draft metrics for game merit. 1) Be sellable to sponsors. 2) Not alienate volunteers. Of course these are still subjective, but I'd say it's clear that 2015 > 2014 on #2 and 2015 < 2014 on #1. I know refs that left last year because of the toll the game took on us. I hope no one loses a current or potential sponsor this year to "competitive box stacking", but based on comments here and elsewhere, I'm not overly confident. And I would argue that that, no matter how much you or I personally (dis)like the game, is a problem.

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

And then the 1 and 2 went into the finals. I mentioned something similar in another thread. I think that the 1 alliance is winning more than ever this year. I can't complain though since this worked out in our benefit :D


That all being said, this is my last year of FRC, and I have to say I hoped for a different kind of game. However, I like a lot of aspects of the game, such as the delay the chute door (yes) provides. Build season was also very challenging and fun.

My least favorite part of this year is that you cannot counter another alliances strategy. In the semi-finals and finals my alliance did the exact same thing five times in a row. We won handily because nobody could stop us.



But seriously guys, it's too late to change the game now so what good does complaining do? Even if it's not the normal competitive game, I still had an amazing time at our districts. Have fun with what is there!

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

I'm curious how you know the step was added late in the game design process.

If there were a landfill but no step (as well as a safe zone near the HP stations), I think this game would be extremely interesting.

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

I think it's your practice bot that did it to you....I'm not burned out.....we got to quit working on Feb 17th.

As for being like a job, I don't see it that way. I'm not getting paid for robotics, so it's still a game.

See you tonight!

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

Frank mentioned it when he was a guest on Gamesense. He did mention that the GDC was pretty split on the decision of adding the step and removing defense. I have to agree though that if the landfill was a neutral zone and step removed, we might have seen much cooler play especially at the highest level. As it stands now, Einstein will probably be decided in the first second of autonomous. Though I'll wait to see if that will end up being the case or not.

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

If we're going on "is Recycle Rush a spectator friendly game"? I'd say that on a scale of yes to no, it's a meh. The aspect of the game is similiar to other first games, regardless of game pieces, stacking and scoring are present in many FRC and FTC games. I remember seeing FRC for the first time in 2008, and all I could think of was " what the hell is happening?". Looking back at a bunch of other games, 2007 there was no real exciting aspect of the game: "bruh, did you just score a tube on a post? No freaking way, that's the most exciting thing I've ever seen." (Said no one) . I can list a bunch more games where watching it made you fall asleep, even in those crappy stadium seats.

If I didn't know what FIRST was, and I watched a high-end match from champs, I would get really interested. The intensity of a stack falling over, last second scoring, bin grabbing, tipping, its all exciting. Not to mention, it easier to see what each robot is doing, rather than 2013/2014, where every robot on the field were running everywhere.

I don't know, I'd say we stop complaining and look at the positives. We see new rules, allowing new mecahnisms and designs to come into FRC. Have anyone seen an kiwi be this effective since 2008? No. Would you ever see another awesome drive like holonomic kiwi from a high end team, and be this effective, with games like 2013 and 2014? No.

Everybody, chill and play the game out.

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

To talk about a point someone brought up earlier: why couldn't we have a round robin format with wins/losses?

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

I found at the first competition I attended that the game was more exciting to watch than I expected. The seeding system does however have an unfortunate side effect.
Usually, throughout the qualification matches, a team's ranking peaks right after they have played (and won) a match and then slips as other teams win in subsequent matches. They way it works this year with average scores is that a team's ranking can go up as a result of match in which they weren't playing. The effect of this is that when I'm watching a match which my team isn't playing I find myself hoping for both alliances to do poorly. With the more usual seeding system based on win & losses I would typically be cheering for underdogs in hopes that they defeat higher ranked teams.
Cheering for someone to win in more fun than hoping all the robots on the field perform poorly.