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

I'm getting a bit burned out by this year's competition. The game a couple years ago was Ultimate Frisbee; this year's is stacking bins in a warehouse. The winning robots all look like racks of bread in a bakery.

My engineering day job is more fun.

Thoughts?

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

I couldn't disagree more!

This year's game results in intense, fast-paced action - at the Australia regional last week we had crowds and teams watching on the edge of their seats as the teams playing tried to reach the maximum points they could.

It's all about playing the game to the limit.

Also the fact that it's hard to build a robot to do everything, it makes strategically selecting complementary alliance partners incredibly important.

Without wishing to be negative, I think all this complaint (this isn't the first post of this type) about the 2015 game is completely misplaced. If you build a great robot, you will have heaps of fun trying to win.

I'm tired of these negative threads about this year's game. Go complain somewhere else the gdc tries their best. I'm not a big fan of the game but I'm not going to complain on the Internet when there's no way the game is going to change.

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

I'm tired of all the negative comments about negative comments about the game. If you are upset because you think people shouldn't get upset about the game, well, I for one don't want to hear it.

Wait, no. Actually, I'm sick of all the negativity toward people who say that they are sick of the negativity. Quit picking on people who pick on people who pick on people who pick on the GDC!

No, wait

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

Seriously, the game isn't my favorite. It has problems. But, it's still fun and worthwhile, and I very much appreciate the effort of all the folks who continue to challenge me and my students each year, including this time.

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

I disagree. This game has made a lot of changes to rules that have been complained about for a really long time.

• No Bumpers
• No Size Limitations*
• Less ambiguous rules
• Progressive and Responsive GDC/Q&A

*Other than height and transport configuration.

Basically everyone should enjoy the game for what it is. There will be a new game next year. It will be different.

I think I have gotten tired of listening to people complain about the game every year. The game will never be perfect.

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

Every game in FRC history has had flaws, and every game in FRC history has had people that hated the game. Look at last year. People said the game was terrible right at kickoff. After Einstein everybody agreed that Aerial Assist was an incredibly fun game despite all the negatives. Every game has its pros and cons. It's up to us to focus on the pros and enjoy the games that GDC gives us.

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

This game isn't my favorite. The meta-game has a bit of a gaping hole in mid-range bots, and so many of the upper-echelon bots do the exact same concept to score lots of points. It's also every bot for itself. Probably the most interesting moments of a good match happen before the match during the driver discussion.

But even with a half-way decent working robot, it's fun-ish to play (maybe I'm biased, I'm a driver coach). It was (is?) a very tough challenge to design and build for given the square game pieces after years of round game pieces (maybe I'm biased, I'm the team's CAD mentor). All of our build kids had a lot of fun with it. Our drivers have been a bit stressed about it, but that's life as a driver with a multi-function robot.

I wouldn't say I'm burned out by it, not yet at least. If we were out of weight budget and couldn't improve further, then maybe it'd be different.

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

I'm not really sure where else you expect them to "complain". A more helpful comment would be directing OP to threads that exist already pertaining to this subject, or a "somewhere else" for them to continue this conversation.

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

The GDC has had some pretty exciting games in the past. Basketball was great, especially with the End Game, and Aerial Assist was very fast-paced game, but this year is sub-par. This is definitely not the best GDC has/can come up with.

That being said, I don't think this years game was specifically meant to be the greatest game ever, but designed to raise awareness about the environment.

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

If I pay 5,000 dollars expecting a certain experience and that experience does not live up to my expectations I will complain about that experience, regardless of how much effort was put into creating it in the first place.

I'm not a fan of the game and I think that certain aspects of it, if adopted long term, could harm the FIRST program. I think a game that (in my opinion) doesn't engage an audience of non-engineers in the same way that a sporting event does is contrary to FIRST's goals. Because of this, and because I want FIRST to continue to inspire and engage students, I will make my opinions known.

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

Suitable to the conversation of who likes what, you like end games. I strongly dislike them. Who likes what game is all based on personal taste.

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

I loved last year's game, in spite of (not because of) the violence and refereeing difficulties. Never had so much much fun. This year's unexpected turn was difficult to swallow, but FRC is still the best thing going.

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

you paying 5k....

You are not the team you dont personally spend 5k on the game therefore you didnt pay 5k. We all pay the same entry fee and we all play the same game. I dont love the game but theres nothing we can do about it. Give the gdc a break because I am sure you wouldnt want their job (I Know i wouldnt) they make a solid game every year and all everyone ever does is complain. Its not a sports themed game and a lot of people like sports themed games. But it doesnt mean its not a fun game to play. The GDC doesnt need your opinion to help them. Throughout build season they have heard thousands of the same opinions; and I hate to break it to you they are moest likely deep in development of next years game.

Im not wanting to start a war I simply want to drop the atomic bomb to end it.

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

Ask my students how many hours I spend with them in robotics that I could have used to earn money.

Also, I would have the same reaction to spending my school's money on a defective $5000 machine, or software package, or whatever. It's the school's money, but I'm still not gonna say "oh well".

Notice the extremely positive outcome to the cheesecake incident just today from the folks at FIRST. Would that have happened without strong feedback?

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.

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

I tell them it's kinda like a bunch of other non-contact competitive sports while waxing philosophy... golf, long jump, gymnastics, pole-vaulting, ring toss, javelin throw... You are trying to perform from a rehearsed routine and trying to achieve perfection... You are competing with yourself - it's like life, etc. etc.

I've said this same in other threads. This year is a tough sell for my sponsors and parents. The students get it, they build the robot, they have a competition to get ready for. They are ready to celebrate Robotics and Science and Engineering and GP with all of the other teams. It will be fun. But I also have to be able to sell it to their parents - so that they don't yank the students and put them into something else. I have to be able to sell it to my sponsors - most of these guys/gals get sports easy - I can sell them Frisbee, Basketball, Soccer, Nascar.

GDC has a tough job to do and they get beat up for it - it's a thankless job that is sometimes under-appreciated. And yes, it's my job to sell my team and to get "mo money" so that the team can continue to build robots, build leaders. I feel like I'm apologizing or just plain making excuses this year.

Look, it's a hard hill to climb to get people to understand FIRST - every single year. Some years, it's easier. I can just yell "Basketball" and eyes will light up rightaway.

It just feels like a bigger hill to climb this year.

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

For those of you who don't like the game... well, I'll just say that my sympathy is limited. Maybe you'll like next year's game better. For those who say it isn't their favorite game... hey, I get that... we all have favorite games, but saying its not your favorite is a big difference from saying you don't like it.

Personally I love the fact that it has changed things up and allowed so many teams to try so many different ideas. It is a game that it is very easy for a low resource team to create a robot that can stack a few crates, while almost impossible for anyone to perfect it.

Okay, almost impossible for anyone but 1114 to perfect it. :-)

But then again, I liked Lunacy, too... because it was different. Everyone had to throw out everything we knew about building drivetrains for carpeted playing fields and start over.... from the slippery ground up.

In fact, while I have favorites (Aim High, for instance) I can't think of a single FRC game that I've experienced that I haven't enjoyed. I'd like to credit the GDC, but I think the credit should be shared between the GDC for having the idea, and the teams for making the idea into something awesome.

I do, however, find it interesting that the games that are the most different (Recycle Rush, Lunacy) are the ones that often receive the most criticism. I guess some folks just don't like change.

Jason

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

I feel this game is fine. It may not be the most intense game, but is that what FRC is all about? No. It's about students learning new concepts, having fun, and getting experience in science and technology. I, myself, have seen so many cool mechanisms, some that I know would not have come together if there were aspects in the game, such as: bumpers, defense, size restrictions, motor restrictions, etc.

However, I do see a large gap separating the higher team numbers (less-experienced) and the lower numbers (more experienced) than any other year. The lack of defense renders bare drive bases basically useless (disregarding herding totes and litter).

Despite the comments from fellow FIRSTers, this game has brought many cool aspects to the game, some that I wished were a reality for a while now. Hopefully we see some old game aspects come into play in future games, but I like new twists and turns the GDC gives us, giving us new problems to solve and overcome.

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

This year's "game" is kinda like bowling or darts to me: once you're behind, you're screwed, unless the other alliance makes a mistake.

PS: I don't like those things.

PPS: I liked Lunacy.

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

Who716,
What is your version of an ideal game? Please start a new thread and tell us.

Do you like Mario Kart? Are you a "blue-shell" kind of guy?

I hate blue shells.

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

I agree. The point of FIRST is SOCIAL engineering, not technical engineering. It's to attract students who would never give STEM another look. When its exciting its successful.

This year after I've seen a good bot in a couple of matches, I'm done watching them, even 1114. I never got tired of watching 254 fly around the field last year (to our chagrin.) Being exceptionally good at repeating a routine does not make for a great sporting event.

And I make these posts about this year's game, in very specific ways, hoping that someone will notice. The GDC already responded to another thread about the "cheesecake" issue. I'm guessing they're reading and thinking about next year. But I completely understand that we playing the game that we are for this year.

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

I once told them it's kinda like Russian Acrobatics Gymnastics - except that you've only practiced by yourself and you have not practiced with any of your partners. They got that I'm just joking...

Check out this super awesome Russian Acrobatic Gymnatics team though.
https://youtu.be/8LW0sioDcSo

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

I agree with your post.

I noted one important thing about your examples: ALL of them are individual sports--not a single one is a team sport. (Gymnastics is a made up team sport that's really individuals.) I think the problem is that these sports really don't have any interaction with other individuals in a direct way. That may be why this year's game isn't really ringing true.

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

Wow, what an apt analogy.

I never understood that. Why would anyone try to lead the pack in MarioKart if you know you will always lead for 2 laps then get smoked by multiple blue shells at the end... Why would you make a mechanic that directly harms the top competitor? I enjoy the Bullets and Golden Mushrooms that let you catch up from the bottom more than the blue shell - especially if the guy who gets it is in 8th place; they'll likely never catch up to 1st anyway, yet the 1st place racer is now probably in 4th or 5th.

Why do we want to lower the ceiling rather than raise the floor?

Especially as we see the teams who are able to independently create and cap their own stacks seem to be doing better, the notion of the "alliance" seems to be lesser emphasized when compared with a "group of three teams each doing their own thing."

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

At the very least it's fun to point out that the new system was designed to fall in line more with "Olympic" sports scoring instead of a standings that was a variant of traditional team sports with this in mind:

Say what you will about it being hard to get a good top 8 in the past (classic Virginia 2013 when a top 8 robot scored zero points the entire tournament, save for foul points to the opponents) no one is watching downhill skiing September through February, they're watching the NFL. Baseball stadiums fill to the brim on cool weekend nights in the summer and no one is lining up to see a kayak slalom as often. March Madness is probably the greatest event in sports, and it's top-down single elimination chaos.

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

I've always thought that one of the strengths of FRC as a competitive and spectator sport is its use of 2-minute rounds, which add intensity when the games are designed correctly; compare the average excitement of a match of Counter-Strike with one of Dota. Losing interactivity between alliances rather removes this intensity; might as well line up our robots and clock our stack times to determine seeding.

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

We all have heard "It's not just about the robot" yes I get it and so do all of you...but what I think Dean, and everyone involved in First wants, is for everyone not to pick apart yet again "this years game"...it's about continually exciting these brilliant young minds to save the planet we all have abused and surely have pretty much destroyed. I truly count on these FRC First Team students to absolve us all of our sins. So its not a job...its a real reality that we encourage all these students to fix what the past has broken...give them every resource they need. They are our last hope. Ok, I will get off the soapbox now. :cool:

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

Huh.. I love blue shells! Hate bananas, though. I guess I'm bad at "Mario Kart". :rolleyes:

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

I think this game is quite exciting, at least from the perspective of a team member. I've really enjoyed the season so far since we're continuously iterating and improving our design. I like how we can purely focus on playing the game instead of making provisions for highly variable things like defense. On the other hand, it does feel more like a match of solitaire than it does an actual competition. However, there exist many non-interactive sports which are still exciting and easy to appreciate: Gymnastics, track and field, swimming, and so on. How many of us would argue that the 100m dash would be better if runners were allowed to trip each other?

Sometimes a game requires you to put aside things like opponent interaction. We would never have a game like Recycle Rush if defense was a major factor; the GDC would certainly be stifled for creativity if they only allowed games where robots could prevent each other from scoring. Sometimes defense allows for a grotesque imbalance between the effort required to create something and the effort required to destroy it. I'll take 2007 as an example: It was way too easy to shut down a really good team by simply getting in the way. I hate watching games where robots simply slam into each other and struggle to do anything exciting game-wise. This year's game has forced teams to build more than just a working drivebase. Recycle Rush is helping to raise the bar of general robot quality and has been encouraging teams to step up their game and think more about neat designs and strategies instead of impromptu tactics during a match.

I feel like we're going to see some very exciting matches in St. Louis this year. Instead of having to drag down the best teams via defense, teams must instead iterate and evolve in order to remain competitive. Teams are pushing the limits every single match, and to me that's exciting. I can really appreciate the amount of skill and precision that goes into crafting and executing the perfect match plan. I want to see two killer alliances face off on Einstein and have to be just *that* much better than the other in order to win. I want to see robots have to race to create their stacks just a few seconds faster because their opponents are just as evenly matched as they are.

In addition, I'm glad we have a game this year where few teams had the ability to recycle previous years' designs. I've been racking my brain the last 2.5 months to try and solve all of these brand new problems. I don't think I've ever had to think as hard over my last ten years in FIRST as I've had to this year. I suppose that's worth something.

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

The blue shell in Mario Kart is precisely what allows for an okay driver/ Robot, to remain competitive. Defense when done well is a work of art. And it requires more skill and thought then just getting a turbo, to catch up to everyone. Defense being lost puts so many robots out of contention. But im sure your team probably hates defense being such a strong offense robot year in and year out.

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

I'm actually surprised how much I enjoy this game during the elims. It's really intense out there. Friday drags on and Thursday is a total bore but I have to give it credit, it's better than I thought it would be.

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

At GTR Central someone brought a drone to the event and I thought " that's what this game needs. attack drones unleashed in the last 30 seconds to knock over stacks with elements on the robot to slap them down and drone dogfights everywhere! Now that's excitement!"

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

I hate to say it, but I found 2001 to be more entertaining than this year. At least that year you had the variable of stopping the clock and the race to see if you could complete the task faster. Additionally, in order to get max points the teams on the field had to work together whereas this year you typically have robots doing their own thing in their corner of the field. And the playoff format this year: zzzzzzzz.

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

My biggest complaint this year doesn't really have much to do with the game itself, but more about the robot rules:

The 78" height limit. Keep it at 60" so that we don't have to struggle to get our robot through doors, please. :)

While Recycle Rush isn't my favorite, it certainly isn't the worst. At least you can see the progression of the scores and the huge point swings, unlike Lunacy where you can hardly see who's in the lead. Matches aren't decided in the first 5 seconds like Zone Zeal was (although it might turn into that at higher levels of play) and the whole game doesn't stray away from its original point - stacking boxes - and dissolve into a brutal King of the Hill like Stack Attack.

Also, I really don't like the hokey themes. The terms "Moon Rock" and "Litter" make me cringe.

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

I know FIRST wants to draw more excitement and attention to Engineering/STEM but it's still engineering. You probably won't be working on a robot disc shooter or foam/exercise ball thrower ever. You might work on the machine that forms the plastic for the disc, or test materials to find the best composition of plastic to make it out of. Maybe you would prefer working on the power system for the plant or analyzing and optimizing the work flow?

Point is if you can't handle this maybe slightly less exciting game you get your excitement from the wrong place. I'm excited about getting twice as good at Labview than I was in 2014 ago and that my team can finally use vision processing. I'm excited our team gets to run and compete in FRC with more than $1,000 spending money this year and that we will be mentoring an FTC team starting this summer.

So thank you GDC for more great learning experiences and a chance to apply my technical skills with a team, and for giving me an amazing excuse to hang out with so many engineers.

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

This is just me speaking from a spectator. I have NOT built a robot this year. I went to an event last weekend for fun and to take a break from a film project I am working on and this is what I thought:

If math and science isn't your thing, visit the pits and see some robots quickly and then go home and work on something else. Come back next year. The straight up sporting feel of the game just isn't there if you don't "get" the scoring right away. It's not like many of the past games where anyone off the street could walk in and be able to follow what's going on.

The game may not be for everyone but I can kind of see its merits in teaching kids to play against them-self and try to make the best robot they can, then beat that robot. Always try to achieve higher scores and do better each match.

All that being said, I wish this years game had more action, had more interaction between teams, and had a less difficult seeding system. I started to try and figure that out and no amounts of coffee could make that happen without sitting down with a manual. I'll give it another shot in a few weeks and hopefully my thoughts on the game will change but who knows.

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

I think the issue with this game is it's appeal to non-FIRST community members. In the past, saying "our robots shoots basketballs/frisbees/gigantic balls" was a much more approachable game. People understood how that could be "sport" and it was much easier to demonstrate in a variety of environments.

When I explain this game in the most exciting way I can, I actually see a little disappointment on people's faces like, "Oh, it stacks boxes?"

We find it fun to watch because after 6 weeks of scratching our heads it's cool to see how other teams have dealt with what is a pretty big technical challenge. We find the elims exciting because it is our game, our world.

TL;DR It's not a bad game. It's just not the best game to appeal to non-FIRST people. Need to brainstorm some cool ways to demo it in the summer/fall.....

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

Is it OK to not like anything under the sun. Or do equate not liking with negativity. Thomas (just give me a crabcake) McCubbin

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

I respectfully disagree!

I believe the 2001 game was actually the beginning of teams sharing information during the build season. Many teams showcased their machines and their strategies early on in their build in an effort to create an alliance where each robot performed a specific task very well. Wildstang and their teeter-totter controlling ramp 'bot comes to mind.

I readily admit that I was not overly thrilled with this years game. However, after attending NYC last weekend I've changed my mind. As Koko Ed said earlier, qualifying is a drawn out process but Eliminations....er....... Playoffs is definitely a much more exciting time.

I was actually surprised this year that more teams did not share their concepts earlier during build in a similar concept of creating complementary robots.

The majority of teams that exist today only understand an offense/defense type of game because that is all they have seen for over a decade. I believe that the game this year threw many of them a curveball in that they may not have been able to wrap their heads around a minimally interactive game.

Now I have my own thoughts as to a best vs worst list of games but I'll keep that to myself. As they say everyone has an opinion and "your mileage may vary"

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

This.

The engineering this year has been difficult. Watching the effort, comprehension, and growth of the students this year has been amazing.

I get it that this year's competition is harder to watch by or describe to the general public. I wouldn't want it to happen often (2 out of 3, 3 of 5 would be too much), but I'll tolerate it occasionally, for how it inspired our students this year.

Note to self for next year - remember to think inside AND outside of the box.

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

When someone at GDC stays up to 3am during 2010 "Breakout". Comes up with a math problem that was 8 mm long to determine how long it should take, to return, the soccer ball to the field; algorithm. We the simple people just said 11 seconds. The drawings for making the pyramid did not make sense to my engineer teacher or his carpenter son, 2013 game. The static bowl game in 2009, that I got shock a lot doing field reset. The GDC should be big to. To take a few lumps. Thomas (just give me a crabcake) McCubbin

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

Because you don't agree with other opinions...

The thing to remember is there will always be two+ sides to every argument and nobody will ever 100% agree...

Attacking others for differing opinions only makes you look silly....

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

I have to be honest, I really do not like this game. I think the field of robots is spread so much wider this year than others between the best teams and the worst teams. Also, as previously mentioned, it's hard to get the game to appeal to people outside of FIRST. And, for me at least, it's painfully boring to watch most quals matches, though elims can get pretty cool when an alliance really grooves.

That being said, there are a lot of things that this game does right. Primarily, I think the eliminations format is a step in the right direction. The switch from "win-loss-tie 2 out of 3 head to heads" to a round robin system is something that I like very much. Here's why:

Suppose somehow we had an objective way of measuring which elims alliances are the best (obviously this is an idealized situation). Now suppose that at a given event, alliance 1, 2, 7, and 8 are objectively the best alliances. In a round-robin style format these alliances can all advance, and the best four alliances move on to the semis, instead of two of them getting eliminated in quarters. The same logic applies to semis. I am not pretending to have all the answers, and I'm not sure how we could combine a round-robin playoff model with the win-loss-tie format (because, it is a competition after all, and there are and should be winners and losers), but I do thoroughly believe that this is a big step in the right direction for FIRST.

Oh, and if you're still reading this, here's one more good thing about RR. This game has changed the way teams think about drivetrains. Tank drive is still fine, but this is a year where omni-directional drives can really own it. I love how many stupidly simple drives there are this year, and I look forward to how teams wrangle their newfound loves for low-traction omnidirectional drives (H-drive, mecanum, etc) with the fact that next year there might be robot-robot contact again.

tl;dr: I really don't like this game, but I do like round-robin elims and drivetrains

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

If good game design was easy then I would be a billionaire making the next hit video game.
If you strongly believe that this years game is bad I understand that, I'm not a huge fan of the game but I respect the GDC with their consistent ability to deliver a game internationally that provides everything that FIRST stands for. It is absolutely true that some years are better then others. It is absolutely fine to provide feedback. However real people, real humans put their time into making these games and you should keep that in mind and be polite. The GDC does not have the resources to fully test games the way most games be it video games or board games. They do however have ears as long as we keep the conversation polite I believe they will keep an ear out and open to us.
There is an area for game design on chief delphi if you have an idea for a game bring it over there and it can be turned into a discussion.

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

I hope everyone realizes that the Step (and thus separation of the alliances) was added late in the game design process soley due to the constant, incessant moaning and compaining about the defense last year.

Now look at us: complaining about not enough strategy ie. defense.

While both these games may be seen as the two extremes, we asked for it.

I personally see merit in both sides of the arguement about the quality of this year's game, but I cannot help but realize that we brought this on ourselves.

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.

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

Wondering if there might be a 'CanBurgler' agreement at the higher levels of play. Both sides agree to grab two cans (not fighting over them), and may the fastest stacker/topper win.

An alternative to avoid the 1/2 second decider issue, would be to make step resources off limits until an alliance has placed a set number (6?) of (capped?) grey totes on scoring platforms. Or maybe you can't get a step can until you've used your three cans to cap stacks-- now its a race..

Maybe some good ideas for IRI and other off season events ?

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

At the highest levels, whichever team has the slower can stealer needs to be the lower seed for finals so they can place their robots second.

As for IRI/off-season changes, I was thinking just having extra recycling containers behind the driver station that can be put into play over the driver station wall.
This would increase the maximum scoring potential of both Alliances.

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

ok, here's the thing - and it might be something that many numerous teams do not have problems with. Money and external interest. And I am going to stop beating this dead horse after this.

I want to keep doing FIRST. There are many many students that want to keep doing FIRST. and we will keep doing it no matter what the game is. We *do* appreciate all of the work GDC does, all of the work that FIRST volunteers and employees do that make all of this possible.

A lot of teams have a different level of struggle (on the higher end) as far as juggling sponsors and interests - perhaps there's a stable base and you are worried about a different aspect of fundraising and sponsor drives.

Here in California, the State Court recently in the last 2 years or so, made a ruling on a suit. The end result is that after-school extra-curricular activities can not require fundraising as a basis for participation/membership. We can ask people to help, but we can't require it. We can *not* charge a membership fee, equipment fee, or anything like it. As long as we are tied to a public school, our team has a very strict set of handcuffs regarding how to implement our schemes to generate cash inflow. The ideas behind it are great - making it a level playing field and provide a certain set of fairness for participation. However, it makes it extremely difficult to staff fundraiser events.

We enjoy building the robot and seeing the students overcome challenges. The problem is if I have a difficult time generating interest and sponsorships, we won't get a chance to make the robot. The "meh" faces I'm getting from this year - from sponsors and parents - are all that I want to bring attention to. I like promoting FIRST and the game, this year I just find myself trying to apologize instead of cheering alongside my excited visitors at the game.

I know it's a hard job putting together these games and the events. However, I do still want to bring to light some of the challenges that other teams face on the fundraising end - and the overall goal of bringing FIRST and STEM to the general public. I know that every team out there struggles with their budget every year - FRC is expensive. For some teams, maybe losing sponsorship mean having to look for another great shop that can powder-coat their robot. For us, it might mean "no money, no robot"

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

Using this as a metric:

You know that to people that don't know FIRST the very first thing they think I am talking about is RobotWars TM.

So for the first section of a conversation they think we are going to build robots and smash them up like Romans in the Colosseum.
I suppose we could argue that the Colosseum was very effective at occupying the Roman Empire's interest.
We are being even more humane because we are only smashing up robots.

- Point being - sometimes we want to get the right attention.

RobotWars was all about entertainment.
It did not work like a true balanced competition behind the scenes.

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

It's true. Almost every time I open a conversation with "So I've been volunteering with a high school robotics team" the other person says "Oh, like Robot Wars?"

The reaction when I explain "it stacks boxes" is always a little fun to watch... but when you get into the eliminations and finals, things start to look very interesting. Races between can-grabbers, the "will it fall?" when a team puts down a precarious looking 6-tote stack with RC, the moment when a robot is in the act of putting down an RC just as the timer hits 0 (will it count??) and who can forget the moment in the Finals 2 at GTR Central when a pool noodle landed inside 1114's robot and toppled the stack it was trying to build, leaving a tote jammed in the mechanism for a few precious seconds.

It kinda sounds lame to read it, but it was so intense to watch!

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

A team parent is a photographer for the small town newspaper and got a press pass and took lots of pictures at Northern Lights.

The picture caption in this week's newspaper photo from the event was literally "Robot Wars."

The media knows what sells, I guess.

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

ok, no metrics are necessary - I am just trying to bring more people in to get interest in this - though at a certain level it *is* a little bit of selfishness, because the team (and FIRST in general) needs a little more recognition - and our team (like most teams out there I'm sure) needs money. I can't get money without the attention - good or bad (but definitely hoping it's all good).

I don't need metrics or Robot Wars or whatever - I myself actually didn't even know about Robot Wars until several years after I'd started FIRST - maybe I'm closeted or something. And funny enough. I only get that "Robot Wars" reaction maybe 25% of the time. It comes up once in awhile, but definitely much much much less than half of the time.

and Robot Wars is coming back now, so that's going to be another problem come next season.

All I am saying is, "I" and the team don't have any problems with the game - other than the fact that it is - from our perspective and the anecdotal "metric" of looking at my visitors faces and their frantic search for words "that don't insult me" (such as lame) when I show them "look our robot stacks boxes" as compared to "look, our robot shoots/kicks balls/frisbees or races around a track tossing balls or anything else"... - getting more blank stares from my visitors and parents.

I want to show them a game where it's very obviously team-oriented, that it's something akin to some type of sport - so that there is no problem in their minds to make that small leap from what they are already familiar with to what I want them to know - which is what we do is very relatable... As you know, sometimes you only have a few short seconds to make a pitch, the more I have to explain, the quicker they lose interest.

I am interested in converting more minds quicker and not turning them off. If that's a metric, that's the one I'm interested in. I really could careless about Robot Wars - it's pretty much the first thing I immediately discount fairly early in the program each season. FIRST brings the added value of GP and Professionalism that I don't see in VEX or Robot Wars (no insult to any of the other fine programs, I'm sure there are great people playing it. It's just not necessarily a front-and-center stated value)

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

I think the real issue here is that it takes a certain level of knowledge of the game (any game) before you can start to appreciate and enjoy watching.

Robots playing soccer? Everybody gets that, because everybody knows what soccer is (or, even if you don't, you are at least familiar with the concept of kicking a ball around). So anyone who has seen soccer knows what they are looking at when they see robots chasing the ball, passing between teammates, intercepting, shooting.

And due to the nature of man, everyone understands the concept of bashing into other robots to prevent them from achieving their goals, of offense and defense. Violence, basically. Everybody gets that. It's obvious, and compelling.

Robots stacking boxes? It takes a little more understanding to figure out what the heck is going on, but once you see it, then you see it (if that makes sense). Ah, look, that one is holding the RC hoping for the other one to finish a tote stack. See? They are working together. Oh, there's only 10 seconds left, will 1247 be able to finish its double-stack from the tote feeder and get it onto a scoring platform in time? There is real drama there but only if you understand the rules. And since there is no direct interaction between the two competing alliances (save for the canburgling in the very beginning), there is that much less "obvious" stuff to look at and understand.

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

Here's something worth trying when you introduce someone to FRC. Instead of starting with explaining the current year game mechanics, explain the key differentiator which you noted above-- the GP and Coopertition. So instead of "This is a great program, our team built a robot to stack totes", say "This is a great program. Teams built their bots in six weeks and right now in the pits there are veteran teams loaning parts, tools and work for other teams to repair and improve their bots, so that all the bots are as good as they can be. That's like a football team loaning a lineman to the opponents!"

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

This is gonna be a long one, so bear with me. I wanted to hold off until I had actually played the game. (did so last week)

To a large extent, the 2015 game has solved many of the problems that games have had/people have complained about in the past:

Aggressive Defense resulting in robot damage:

-This was only really a topic of discussion in 2014, where there were no safe zones and had carpet with 6 CIM drive trains.

-Since you can't go over and touch the other robots, this isn't a problem anymore

*I still think this could be largely avoided and wasn't that big of a deal
**I didn't watch every instance of damaging contact, and there may have been a situation where it was a big deal

Overworked Referees:

-2014 had a ref intensive game where they had to be looking in five different directions at the same time, leading to missed calls/controversial calls

-There are now scorers for the live score display, and simpler/less controversial rules. Refs have less work to do now.

Game outcome changing penalties:

-Many, many outcomes of games were changed because of the 50 pnt Tech foul in 2014. No other year really had this issue (maybe 2010 to a lesser extent with ball return penalties)

-Penalties are relatively small for 2015, and definitely not changing outcomes.

*50 pnt foul was needed in order to make it enough of a deterrent to not "steal the opponents ball" making it impossible for them to score.

Ambiguous/Unclear Rules:

-2014 had rules that were called largely by "intent". My intent isn't the same as your intent, which isn't the same as his intent... etc etc.

-2015 has clear rules

Bumpers:

-From 2009-2014 FRC required full bumpers on the robot, mounted in a specific zone, with red/blue requirements starting in 2010.

-Bumpers were a lot of work to make, mount, and be easily removable to change colors. Many teams (mainly rookies) would show up to events with no/illegal bumpers, and thus adding a bunch of stress on them etc.

-2015 has no bumper requirement, so one less thing to worry about. Teams are out on the field earlier.

Seeding:

-Schedule luck played a huge roll in how well you seeded. Only play against bad teams, and only play with good teams and you can seed higher than robots that may be better than you.

-2015 mitigates match schedule to a massive degree. If you have a couple of matches with good teams, sure you will rise up in the rankings, but not to the same degree as past years. This means teams with no list that weren't prepared to pick can read off the scoreboard and have a better chance at picking a decent team. Also, it is incredibly unlikely that the best robot at the event doesn't seed first.

Eliminations Bracket:

-Especially prevalent since the wildcard system began, teams would decline to be on the "other side of the bracket" of the powerful alliance in an attempt to get a wildcard slot to champs. AKA (avoiding #4,5,8 alliances)

-2015 obviously has no "bracket" really, and it is entirely possible for you to get to the finals without having to worry if you will have to play the first seed.

Give the GDC credit, virtually every single complaint that people have had about games in the last 5 years, they have worked to solve.

That being said. Obviously the game isn't perfect.

Autonomous is too hard

There are waaay to many 0 autonomous scores. It requires (for the average team) everyone on the alliance to have a functional autonomous. Honestly, I don't know why the GDC didn't make it per robot/tote/can/stack. It's a bad idea to change now, since teams with 3 tote/can autons have recognized the value of autonomous, and have a nice advantage because of it.

Perhaps the GDC was trying to implement a part of the game where all three robots have to work together in order to score points, which I think is a good thing. The problem is autonomous isn't the place you should do it. Teams can't help alliance members that quickly with code based issues, especially in quals at a regional. Not to mention even if I had time, if I use Java, and they use C++, then I might have a hard time helping them move/get an auton working.

Games are less exciting

I'm not going to argue that the matches are boring, but I think we can all agree that they most definitely aren't as exciting as past years. Especially 2014. I think the major contributor to this is the ranking system (which we already established fixes some other problems)

Wins don't matter. Every sporting event is really based around the win, then the secondary is the points. In 2015 wins don't matter, so you don't care if you win or lose (or team 9999 wins or loses) you care about their averages. Before/during the match when all the hype should be, you don't know what the team needs to do to raise their average. Are they doing well/poorly? Who knows! Sure you know their rank, but what do they need to score to move up/down. You have to look at the rankings on your phone/laptop to figure out where each team is at. Simply put, the audience isn't engaged until the end of the match when the scores are released, but by then all the hype is gone, and the score doesn't matter too much because it's not a win/loss situation.

That all being said, lets not forget the many matches where the alliance spends the entire match shooting the ball and missing the highgoal. The team that spends the entire match getting to a 10 point hang only to fall of at the end of the match. Or the matches where nobody can pick up the tubes off the floor and they forget to attempt to deploy their minibot. It's not as bad as people make it out to be. This game still can and will be exciting.

There are a couple other small things like strategically this game is a bit more bland than 2014, but no more bland than any other year. There is also the controversial 3rd robot with a ramp & doesn't move strategy.

The GDC listened to what you had to say but I think to some extent we have a bit of one of Aesop's fables: The Man, the Boy, and the Donkey. You can't please everyone, so don't try to. Someone will always have something to complain about.

Is this game bad? No.
Were other games better? No.
Do I prefer other games over this one? Yes.
Does someone prefer this game over other games? Yes.


Now then. Lets stop complaining all over CD about how bad the game is, and instead think of how you can play the game better.

tl;dr The game doesn't suck, it's just different. /thread

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

I think this year's game appeals to those intested in strategic games (board games or otherwise).

I think the other, more sports oriented games, appeal to audiences that prefer semi-contact sports.

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

I agree that the GDC addressed many of the complaints about last year's game (which were listed on CD BTW so I assume that's where they got them--more on that later). However they didn't need this game design to address most of them.

However I disagree with the 2 categories I've quoted from your list. Completely disengaging the teams is not a useful solution. Robot interaction has been one of the most important aspects of the success of FRC to date. I'm not sure that the bumper issues is so important that to create such a draconian solution--it sounds more like it could be solved in the inspection process (e.g., special help on bumper installation at inspection). The robot damage has been problem. We played with a broken frame clamped together in the final at IE last year. While on one hand that made it more difficult; on the other hand, the team had to work furiously to solve a real world engineering problem of a type that many will face in the field in their careers with real consequences, even lives, as stake. Regardless the robot damage issue can be solved with combinations of safe zones and obstructions that inhibit high speed collisions. (Think traffic calming devices on roads.)

Finally, as I mentioned above I presume that the GDC saw the complaints about the 2014 game on CD and addressed those. That means that we can get somewhere on design of next year's (and future) games by listing issues here. I made laudatory comments about last year's game concept; I'm going the other way this year. I assume that the GDC will avoid slippery surfaces and HP tosses into opposing robots after the 2009 game based on the complaints on CD. I think we have a long list from this year's game.

And I think we've demonstrated that we are thinking about how to play the game better--see CVR. But look at our collective comments--we're thinking beyond just this year.

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

This^

Also, your team has one of the best Robot Crates ever.



Smile

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

Our team has a "middling" robot - the ones everyone seems to feel get 'left behind' this year. I disagree. This year, for the first time, it seems that we are actually placing where we deserve to be - the middle of the pack. I hope we will do better at our next competition, having had more driver practice, etc., but even if we don't, I really like the new seeding, because a "middling" team gets credit (in terms of points, which increase QA score) for what it DOES do, rather than being shut out from getting any credit just because it's up against a better team. It's really frustrating for a team like ours to work so hard to build a robot that CAN, and DOES, shoot a few balls/frisbees, has a 10-pt hang, can balance on the bridge sometimes, etc., but still gets loss after loss because it ends up paired with similar (or less capable) teams and against more skilled teams. It feels like there is NO reward for all that work. Sure, there is the occasional win, and sometimes we would get that win because of our 'bot, but in our competitions over the past few years, it seems like the downside to a 'win-loss' ranking outweighed the upside. In this year's game, we are racking up points right next to anyone we play with - whether they are the proud owners of a 'toaster' or a total powerhouse.

Also, we get to actually PLAY the game, and have our robot DO what we built it to do (in the Quals, at least - I do understand that we might be asked to 'sit still' or at least 'stay out of the way' if we ever got picked by a powerhouse for the playoffs). We aren't just asked to "play defense" all the time - we get to build stacks no matter who we are playing with. And we aren't getting totally shut down by the other side's defense.

And I totally don't get the "we're losing sponsors because it's not a fun sport to watch" or "hard to describe". Our sponsors help us because of what we're doing for the students, how we're helping them, inspiring them - maybe out of a bit of local pride (we're the only team on our island, and most of our sponsors are local) - I don't think most of them even know what the game is from year to year, and as long as the kids are enjoying the activity, and learning and getting inspired in STEM areas, well, that is what we tell the sponsors and what they care about. I mean, we're not talking sponsors who are really hoping to gain market share because their logo is on a robot, right? This isn't NASCAR or professional sports. No one thinks their company is going to get media exposure because they sponsor a FIRST team, do they? Maybe I'm just living in a different world. We get our sponsors through OUR enthusiasm for the game/activity, not because THEY are excited about the competition itself - is this not the norm?

I do agree that autonomous this year is too much "all or nothing" - it would have been better if there had been a point for just getting YOUR robot into the zone, 2 points for getting a tote or container in, etc., with a BONUS for getting all three (robots/totes/containers). This year's auto scoring leaves a lot to be desired, but I think the GDC will learn from it.

Not sure yet how I feel about coopertition this year. I think the disconnect between having coop points contribute so much toward a high ranking in Quals, and then be completely absent from playoffs, is a bit of a problem. Unless you can get into the top tier (i.e., the "pickers") b/c of coopertition, then there is not much point in doing it, because it is unlikely that a score inflated by coop points will lead to being "picked". I would be happier if the coop task were something that could be used in the playoffs (like the bridge balancing in whatever year that was), and/or if the points achieved were more proportional to the value of the task in playoffs. What if a coopertition bonus were given only if each alliance was able to remove at least one can from the step to their side? To get it at all, red would have to get a can off the step AND blue would too. That could maybe add 10-20 points to both alliances' scores. Just a wild musing...

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

Sounds a lot like what I posted before kickoff:

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...&postcount=411

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

The intent was to point out some good things about this game. It just so happens that the majority of those things were directly related to what people have talked about on CD. (mainly last year as people were more vocal) All the things I stated were solutions, just not necessarily the best one.

As for bumpers... if I had to guess, the removal of them is more related to the zero contact than anything else, but I would still call it a "good thing" about the game.

Ideally yes, the discussion results in a positive outcome for next years game. I will be waiting wait till after championships.

You are right, some people are thinking about how to play the game better. It's the people that aren't that worry me.

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

While I think that often people do not understand the game, or any FRC game, I think that there is one thing people do understand: people
There's all this talk about Robot Wars and whatever, and I am sad to hear about that kind of press. But sometimes the media gets it.


This is the front page of the local paper from Monday



There's a whole page later devoted to pictures of the robots and other teams.


See, it's not all about the robots. It's about the people who build the robots. It's not all about the game. It's all about how you play the game

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

I am so glad that you brought this up; Because that is something that we do.

Here's the thing. When I walk up to someone who doesn't know FIRST or Robotics or don't really care that I am talking with them; they already immediately assume that we (he/she and I) do something different - that's pretty much a given. In their minds, most of the time is "Oh, Science, oh Engineering, oh Robots. I can't do that."

First thing I let them know is none of the mentors or students knew anything about FIRST or Robotics when they first started. Heck, some of the students haven't touched a handtool before.

The first thing I want to show them is - we are doing the same thing - not different - find common ground. That gets them on "our" side, then I show them that there's something that we all want and those "GP" things are what we are doing - shared vision.

So, if I am struggling to get off the ground to find common ground - their first impression that we do something different is going to stick...

I think Squillo mentioned that sponsors donate and support out of local pride - I definitely have no doubt about that many other teams (and not just in Hawaii) have a local town that are similarly proud for their one team or one school. By and large, that isn't the type of merchants and sponsors we have locally and unfortunately. I am almost always stuck with cold calls - and if I'm lucky, I'll get invited to actually do a short presentation about what we are and why they should support us. I can't get one by "easily" (I am sure it's not easy to come by and you do have to work at it) with a shaka, a smile, and "Hey Bruddah". I am happy that other teams have tight knit communities that they can "easily" find that common ground. It's not as easy finding those type of common ground here - it's there and they are terrifically supportive - unfortunately, it takes more and when we are reaching out - it often comes down to being able to show them something physical that means something to them.

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

As far as being a 'game' goes, I agree that 2001 was the worst, and I think this year is #2 (I actually enjoyed Lunacy and Stack attack, but I'm sadistic like that ;) )

That being said, I believe that this years challenge is one of the best engineering 'Challenges' FIRST has ever given. The shear difficulty with stacking multiple, different sized, heavy game pieces in a very confined space with other robots that can be 'fairly' large is a huge undertaking. Add the dynamics of coopertition (SP?) stacks and noodle throwing strategies and this is a very difficult challenge.

I, for one, congratulate the GDC on thinking outside the (proverbial) box.

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

I didn't say we couldn't, in fact I think we should. I just haven't really thought through how to decide who matches up with who and how we decide who moves ahead. I think win-loss-tie round robin would be the ideal eliminations format.

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

KoKo Ed said it the best.

On Thursdays, its ZZZZ.
On Fridays, there are too many matches that are ZZZZ.
But on Saturdays during eliminations, there are as good as any previous season, especially if you are still playing come the finals. Is it really any different than previous years?

The game is definitely different compared to the last several years, but the excitement as a whole hasnt changed.

With Championships much bigger starting this year, I see it as gettting to a whole new level with the 8 divisions.
Matches are more fun and exciting when both alliances on the field are more evenly matched, where the better strategy wins matches. We should see a whole lot more given that elite teams will have a tough time getting 3 elite robots on the same alliance due the increase of divisions and teams.

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

In the last few years, some people paid the majority of the attention to the best robot on each alliance in eliminations, because it often appeared to the team. Some people opened their eyes more and looked at the whole alliance as a unit. However, this year in elims, I find myself taking note of how elimination alliances handle the weakest robot on the field. Some alliances sort of push it off to the sides to keep it out of the way of the higher seeds, and some try harder to integrate it into their alliance.

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

This is worse than 2001 and 2009 IMO. At least in those years, every robot on the field mattered, and there was some variation in what you were going to see from match to match.

It felt like FRC was becoming an actual sport for a while, and then all of sudden we're doing a no-touching forklift skills competition instead. If this is the new normal, I'm out. Plain and simple. I'd rather be at work.

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

Amen, plz stahp.

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

Your nuclear game is weak. People who know me know that I can sustain a critical campaign against various flawed aspects of games and their administration by staff and volunteers for weeks, if motivated. But instead of issuing my own extended opinion this time, I will simply encourage any and all who have disagreements over the game to continue to voice them constructively. Please do ensure you fill out the event feedback surveys FIRST issues to competing teams each week - both students and mentors are free to fill these out. And yes, feel free to post your misgivings on CD. We know the GDC is listening. Identify the problem(s) and propose corrective action.

I am recognizing this game as a HOPEFULLY temporary divergence from a more traditional competition. If this type of game becomes the norm, FIRST can throw the "Sport for the Mind" and "Super Bowl of Smarts" taglines right out the window.

"Material Handling for the Mind"? It's definitely harder to capture the hearts and minds of the uninitiated when the vehicle is a forklift instead of a snazzy "sports" car.