Re: Question of the Week!!! (9/19/04)
 

I don't see any water grouped with Earth, Wind, and Fire. And, Pete Best was not their drummer either.

Double-sheesh! :)

OK... I might as well answer Andy's question or I'll get in trouble. I think that the most important element to a good FIRST game is that it is easy to understand and entertainable for a spectator to watch.


Andy B.

Re: Question of the Week!!! (9/19/04)
 

Wow. I think we are of the same ...generation? :)


I drifted off there for a minute...
I'm partial to a game which benefits teams that really work together on a strategy as alliance partners.

Re: Question of the Week!!! (9/19/04)
 

Water is actually 2 parts hydrogen, 1 part oxygen.
Sheesh!

(sorry, i'm such a dork! ;) )

back to the topic at hand...
One important element of a game is the ability to explain it to someone (non FIRST or rookie) in under 10 seconds. This makes the game much more spectator friendly, and makes going to a competition a lot more fun for someone outside of the FIRST realm. This was one of the great advantages of the 2003 game. It is very easy to explain.

"The robots are trying to get the boxes into their scoring zones. If they can stack the boxes, it multiplies their score by the amount of boxes in their stack. If they get to the top of the ramp at the end of the match, they get extra points."

Thats pretty short isn't it. Three sentences. However, this years game was a lot more complex. It takes me a full 30 seconds to explain it to someone. But this year's game had it's advantages also. It allowed for multiple strategies and robots to win the game; hangers, 2x grabbers, and small ball herders. Each scoring element was important to win. I would like a game that offers different ways to score points.

An interesting element that could be added into this year's game, that I dont think has been done before, would be to add "extreme" conditions on the playing field. Something that would set up "design paradoxes", so to speak. For example, if a game included ways to score points deep underwater, and ways to score points on rocky terrain, and it would be impossible to win the game if you couldn't do both...you would create a very interesting design challenge. It would be hard to design a robot that could swim in deep water AND climb over big rocks. Just a thought.... :ahh:

One other element that I personally believe is important is the autonomous mode. I liked how in 2003, autonomous mode nearly always determined the outcome of the match. Some people didn't like this because it seemed to undermine the importance of the remote control period, but I think it made it more intense; the drivers had to frantically try to move boxes onto their side if autonomous mode didn't go their way. I also think autonomous mode applies in the real world; many robotic technologies today rely on robots that are fully autonomous. The game should include elements that give teams challenges that they may find in the real world, such as autonomous mode. Make the game challenging enough to give a good educational experience to FIRSTers.

Sorry I didn't exactly stick to one element!! ;)

Re: Question of the Week!!! (9/19/04)
 

I think the most important element to a successful game is all described in one simple word...momentum.

To explain this, lets look at two of the most successful games in FIRST history, Double Trouble, and Co-opertition FIRST. In double trouble, there were so many ways for the momentum of scoring to shift. In an instant, a team could climb the puck and suddenly the game was shifted towards the climbing alliance. In the next moment, the puck could be moved back across the line to the other alliances side, and once again the momentum changed, making for a very exciting game. Same thing with 2000, there were many ways that the momentum of a round could change. You could hang your robot and the black ball come to mind. It was amazing to see how much of a momentum swing would result from a black ball being removed from a goal, or even more when that ball was brought back to the other alliances goal to put them ahead! The same could be said of last years game with the doubler ball and the bar...so many ways for momentum to change, so many things to have to strategize for.

Lack of momentum sometimes leads to difficult games to understand or follow. Stack Attack was a prime example of this. Though there were ways to quickly change the score, the difficulty to gain momentum through stacking made the game one dimensional, king of the hill.

Of course...I could also agree with Mr. Lavery and say water...but I'm going to once again repeat what Colleen said earlier...footballs!

Good Luck,
Andy Grady

Re: Question of the Week!!! (9/19/04)
 

Good question!

I think that the most important element to the creation of a successful game is action and excitement.

Let's face it---it's good when spectators can keep track of the game, see what's going on, keep score, and so on...but it's better when things are flying, stuff is getting smashed, and FIRST becomes Battlebots + Gracious Professionalism + Woody Flowers instead of half-naked showgirls.

Now, I know that sounded really really stupid, but hear me out!

I think we can all agree that Stack Attack (2003) was the most "bash 'em up" game ever. And some didn't like that, and that's completely understandable. But, in my experience at least, that's been the best spectator game so far. Let's face it---what gets most people (Americans, anyways..) going better than some smashed robots?

Don't get me wrong, I love the games like 2004 where you need an incredible manipulator, an amazing strategy, and so on and so forth---but in terms of what makes a good spectator game---simplicity, excitement, and action. Stack Attack is a perfect example.

Re: Question of the Week!!! (9/19/04)
 

1.) A main task that obvious, but then one that is less obvious that awards the finders.

2.) The chainging of scoring objects (HINT HINT DAVE LAVERY. HINT HINT)

3.) No mundane tasks. Don't have a game where you collect things and then push it to one side, then repeat. Think stack attack with the ramp and stuff.

Re: Question of the Week!!! (9/19/04)
 

I don't know I saw some pretty wild stuff go on during nationals.

Re: Question of the Week!!! (9/19/04)
 

An awesome game is one that allows teams to work together cooperatively to accomplish something - I always find that I have the most fun when I get to talk to people from other teams, figure out a strategy, and in the process, forge some good friendships.

Re: Question of the Week!!! (9/19/04)
 

I'll say.

Re: Question of the Week!!! (9/19/04)
 

Duh! I gotta check my head. It seems to have some cobwebs in it lately. That is what I get for trying to be a smarty-pants.

Andy B.

Re: Question of the Week!!! (9/19/04)
 

One of the most important elements in a game has to be gracious professionalism. This past season and the season before that there was 1 goal that could score big points. The problem was that the goal was placed right in the center of the field and there was a squeeze if 2 or more bots were there, either on top of the hill or on the bar. Thus you could have had bots either A.) wrestling with another bot or B.) Trying to lift a robot off the bar and onto the ground. Those 2 situations are dangerous for a robot and could bring about damage. So therefor, gracious professionalism in my humble opinion was tinkered with to a degree. The solution, make multiple middle point goals such as the 2X multiplier from the past season and not put in an 'end of match' fight for 50 points. ;)

Re: Question of the Week!!! (9/19/04)
 

I think the most important part of the game is the scoring system used. For example, in Stack Attack if the value of a stack had been greater and the value of ending on the ramp, I think the game would have been much better. I wouldn't have been simply a two minute brawl to get on top of the ramp; stacking would have been a viable strategy. That was what I liked so much about First Frenzy: Raising the Bar, two ball bots could go up against two hanging bots and it would still be a close match. But then the scoring system can't be too complicated, like it was in Diabolical Dynamics. I can remember having a lot of difficulty explaining the scoring to people that year. And if you can't easily figure out the score of a match while watching it, then it isn't any fun to watch.

Re: Question of the Week!!! (9/19/04)
 

Gracious professionalism is key. Good teams, as well as good games, have a feel of entertainment to them, because they find a unique way to do the required tasks. A good game has to have a good way to score points. I liked the 2001 and 2002 games, but not the 2003 one (I mean, one measly point per tote). This year's game was good in that respect. There also have to be multiple ways to score points, and there was no one way to win. Some teams won by actively engaging the opponents, while others were quick hangers, and still others filled the goals and then capped and/or hung.
I think one problem of this year's game was defense. While defense can win, there must be a clear line between defense and offensive behavior. Such stuff happens in every game, and robots must be robust enough, but there should be stricter rules. This would make a game enjoyable to watch and fair to those who play.
Another fun thing about games are dominating bots. 190 was a good example of this. They do the work early in the game and just sit quietly at the top. I had an idea of a bot that would cap both opponent goals and hang in auton. Something like that would have been fun to watch. Quick hangers were also fun to watch, and so were basket bots (especially when they got capped, no offense).