Re: Do we want another game without defense?
 

Assembly lines, Canada's ISS arm, and 3D printers usually don't have sledge hammers banging on them on a regular basis. This year still required a lot of consideration for durability, particularly on lift mechanisms that could have seen 2000+ cycles between practice and on-field matches this year.

Interactive game mechanics which do not have direct defense include things like tilting a bridge ('13-'14 FTC), etc. I bet if the GDC played Portal and Portal 2, they'd get some good ideas there too.

Re: Do we want another game without defense?
 

Og the caveman understand: not want head break when Grog hit with club.

Durability is without doubt a legitimate engineering challenge, but there are others more exciting to take on and more satisfying to solve. For Inspiration...

Re: Do we want another game without defense?
 

NO!!!!!

Re: Do we want another game without defense?
 

It's not just thinking about durability, its about figuring out the best way to score under defense as well.

In 2014, the best finishers were either able to shoot from the base of the low goal even when someone was hitting them or outmaneuver their opponents on the field even when a robot was playing defense on them. Teams like 2451 and 33 experimented with different drive systems to accomplish this and succeeded admirably, while teams like 254 understood that the only place they really needed to finish from was the fender.

My team failed at that analysis and engineering because we figured a long range shot would be good enough to finish without any thought to extra maneuverability or fender shots. We were a decent finisher at the regional level due to our experienced driver, but on the world's stage we needed someone else to finish.

In 2013, the best scoring machines either took into account defense in their design by designing for specific locations on the field to shoot from (generally the front or back of the pyramid) or took full-court shots to minimize the amount of line defense that needed to be played on them. Other teams designed systems to block full-court shooters and still be able to go under the pyramid.

Defense isn't only an engineering challenge in terms of how robust your robot was, but also for the creative engineering to defend better and get around defense.

Re: Do we want another game without defense?
 

Let's reframe.

What is it about the lack of defense in Recycle Rush that upsets so many folks?

My understanding is that it's watchability.

It's difficult to watch two matches at once and that's essentially what we get with Recycle Rush: two alliances that do not interact and very minimally impact the score of the other.

Those qualities that make the match difficult to watch also make the match lose our attention more easily and invite us to call the game boring. It's not that we need to see robots bashing into each other like we did in 2014 to be entertained. Robots didn't bash in 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, etc.

I'm curious. What if Recycle Rush didn't require you to watch two matches at once. What if all 6 robots contributed to the same score? What if we remove the step? What if we added something like assists? - the scoring platforms are blue on one side and red on another; the totes are blue on one side and red on another. A stack's pt value is multiplied if there is a blue tote on a red scoring platform. The teams' score is multiplied if there is an equal number of stacks on each side of the field.

Could a cooperation-based game be exciting to watch? Could Recycle Rush be easily redesigned to become that cooperation-based game? Was the issue in Recycle Rush truly the lack of defense? If FIRST decided to pursue a cooperation-based game in the future, what the requirements of the game be for the community to be receptive? Would it be a positive change for the GDC to pursue a game that encourages alternative avenues for success for teams that struggle with design and engineering concepts without punishing teams that develop a mastery of these concepts?

A reference for cooperative games.

We've seen many games that have invited teams that have established a good design, strategy, and execution to work in isolation of their alliance partners and we have even watched games in which it is strategic for an alliance partner not to play the game. What are the requirements in game design to avoid these situations and these games?

Aside: Would a cooperative robot game invite a high-level of "cheesecaking" by design?

Re: Do we want another game without defense?
 

Probably what would happen is one robot on each team would end up, cheesecaked or otherwise, rushing into the opponent landfill and tote-burgling a pile of their totes. The other two would put up stacks as before.

I think this would have been much more interesting to watch.

Re: Do we want another game without defense?
 

I don't think that FIRST will make another for at least a few years. There was too much negative feedback from Recycle Rush. Not all parts of the game were bad. Build season was very interesting and the challenge of manipulating the totes was fun to design for. But the noodles were incredibly annoying for a game that was designed to represent a warehouse environment. Also as soon as Week 1 rolled around, unless you were on drive team the events were incredibly boring. There was no fast paced real time scoring, and really good can battles didn't happen till division finals at worlds.