![]() |
lamancy in the games
has anyone been noticing the lameness of the games in the years? three years ago the box pushing game.. was exciting it was so much fun then the shooting baskets and the balls along with hanging on the bar had so much enthusiasm but when last year came around, at times it could drag on with the capping, but began getting interesting twords the end of the season, but this year so far has almost been unpredictible because at times its interesting but at others its just another 8 hours in the stands. has anyone else came to the conclusion of each game every year has some relation to the first logo...? triangles (tetras) circles (balls) squares (boxes) now as of i can tell there is no pattern to get a head start idea but idk its kinda interesting how first doesnt go out of First's Comfort zone.... haha
|
Re: lamancy in the games
It's not just a comfort zone...it's also what they want to use. Balls are the most useable and most easily identifyable resourse for FIRST to use as a game componet. IT's not what they use...it's HOW they use it. Have you ever seen a game in which we needed to actually shoot balls out of our robot? Thats new. Thats what makes this year different and exciteing. I'd likt to see a game in which we'd have to shoot pool noodles out of our robot, but because shooting pool noodles isn't easy, they use the most simplest of componets to use....balls.
They only used Tetras once and Bins once. I don't see any replication of them. Not only that, but it would be rather difficult if FIRST took a new object into the game every year, they would soon run out of ideas as to what to use. IT's not a bad thing that they use the same ojbects. It even helps when remembering older years and older models to help amp up. FIRST does seem to have this logo-like trend...but until they use Tetra's and Bins in the next 2 years, I won't be convinced. The games themselves are always exciteing. The only Game I was bored in was Stack Attack cause it as just a demolition derby. |
Re: lamancy in the games
Perhaps the FIRST logo was designed to recapitulate the game components rather than the reverse?
|
Re: lamancy in the games
Lame? So I take it your robot wins every match, hands down, because there is no challenge? Your team wins every regional? Every championship?
I recommend you get out of the stands and engage yourself in whats going on. At any given event your robot spends about 20 minutes on the field and about 20 hours in the pits (being maintained, modified, tweaked). If your robot is perfect there are always plently of other teams that need help keeping their bots running. Usually when people are bored its because they are not connected with whats going on. |
Re: lamancy in the games
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=45730
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=43538 http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=37214 All the discussion you ever wanted to read on trends and the logo.... But seriously, I find this game one of the more difficult to understand games (before you retaliate remember, you've had this for 12 weeks now). We had some people come it with us and it took them all day Friday to finally understand the game. While it might be fun to watch the robots shoot balls into the goal, most people want to see destruction which is not what FIRST is about. You have to take everything with a grain of salt because remember, its not as much about watching the game, its about building a robot and learning from it. |
Re: lamancy in the games
Quote:
|
Re: lamancy in the games
Im trying to think of a sport that uses game objects that are not round or square or triangles........... I got nothing
when you put the fundemental geometric shapes in your logo, its not easy to come up with something else A hyper-cube? Highway cones? A pile of sand? Boomerangs? Arrows? Bowling pins? a box of kittens? Ugly bags of mostly water? |
Re: lamancy in the games
well, FIRST could do a water game because technically water doesn't have a shape, it is the shape of its container.
a water game....someone please hurt me for saying that |
Re: lamancy in the games
Quote:
In Afghanistan, the game of buzkashi is played with a headless goat. |
Re: lamancy in the games
Quote:
Pole vaulting? Now there's a FIRST game worth watching!!! |
Re: lamancy in the games
I think large beanbags would be an interesting game piece. You could have the bags be of widely varying sizes, and score based on bag mass. The bags could be different colors easily indicating their mass to drivers. Maybe in the middle of the field could be a large walled-off pit that you get bonus points for tossing or dumping the bags into, making an interesting engineering challenge: how do you toss bags consistently?
You'd have to make the bags out of pretty durable material so they didn't spill though. Or have plenty of shop-vacs on hand to clean the field up quickly. |
Re: lamancy in the games
I would love to see these used as a game object. They are similar to poof balls balls in size and general base geometry, but have a very unique difference.
http://froogle.google.com/froogle_cluster?q=Bumble+ball&pid=4850176807834817 576&oid=17006031747765714766&btnG=Search+Froogle&s coring=mrd&hl=en Imagine a game object like this which moves either away from you, or towards you constantly. It would add a whole new element to the game. |
Re: lamancy in the games
Quote:
Hey, it's an official Olympic Sport! Don't they wave those batons around with long streamers on the end? :D How about "synchronized robots"? (Synchronized swimming is also an Olympic "Sport"). GDC can still remain in the "sport" realm and develop much lamer challenges. |
Re: lamancy in the games
how about a football game piece or a rugby ball?
|
Re: lamancy in the games
Can we get back on topic?
ANYWAYS.... I wouldn't call this years game lame as much as I would aasay that it isn't as interesting as other years. But that could also be because i cant be a driver this year and its a completely different thing watching from the stands than it is from the field... |
Re: lamancy in the games
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
maybe for the FIRST 15th anniversary game they could combine all the games from the last 14 years into one 10 minute match? It would be like a Goldburgh-machine competition! (lamacy would be less than 3%) |
Re: lamancy in the games
Quote:
Even you said last years game was dragging, "but began getting interesting at the end." The end is not here yet. :) |
Re: lamancy in the games
Quote:
|
Re: lamancy in the games
Quote:
A) the quality of the games just doesn't matter - we would all build robots to play "rock-paper-scissors" if FIRST told us to, cause it is just so freakin' much fun to build a robot until 2:30am every night for six weeks! B) the 25,000 people participating in the process of building robots to play this year's game are all morons that love to play games that suck C) the original premise is not quite correct, there is some room to improve but the games are not all that lame after all, and they provide a reasonable challenge for the teams to design toward and a reasonable level of excitement for the audience to watch D) the original premise is way off base, the games are perfect and absolutely impossible to improve upon I may admittedly be a little biased, but I think I am going to go with option "C." And, yes, if you didn't notice - Dean, Woodie, and I take these sort of comments a little personally. Believe me, if you ever saw some of the ideas that never made it into the final games, you would really know what a "lame game design" could be! :) (Dave thinks about the "score points by throwing Krispy Kreme donuts at Dave and Jason Morrella" game). -dave |
Re: lamancy in the games
Quote:
In recent years, most alliances have worked together in an individual manner. (Team XXX plays defense against Team ZZZ, and Team YYY will fend off defender WWW while shooting at the goal.) The robots have not been challenged to act harmoniously to achieve a goal. I know many folks did not like the 2001 game, because of its' indirect competitiveness, but the robots that year were forced to work together as a unit, not individually to achieve the alliance goals. There have been posts this year talking about "feeder robots", and that may have happened, but to a very small degree overall. Otherwise, robots have acted on their own to accomplish their part of the alliance goal. A hockey type game though would force the robots to work together and set up passing plays. (i.e., the robot who carries the puck across the "blue" line cannot be the robot who scores, unless the puck is passed to a partner and returned to the original robot, or stolen by an opponent and stolen back) I would love to see more interaction in this manner, rather than the manner in which current games are designed. This is just an example, there are many quirky rules that would need to be hammered out, but the idea of having alliances interact with each other to win is the key point. |
Re: lamancy in the games (keep focus)
General design Stuff:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/fo...play.php?f=148 (oh look, a parent menu) http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=42208 http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=38139 http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=38141 http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=38142 http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=38140 Water stuff: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=45731 http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=41024 We don’t need extraneous discussion about next year’s game or game ideas in this thread. Please keep this thread on topic about how lame the game is. (these words do not reflect my opinion but only the main argument of this thread) |
Re: lamancy in the games
(My comments may be a little bias because this is the second game i have ever seen.)
This game is more exciting then last year for sure. There are so many different ways to play it that it is very exciting. There are shooters corner scorers defenders, and countless inovative designs for each way. Last year all teams did was cap goals over and over again. There was very little in the way of Change form match to match. This year there is so much need for scouting for your aliance. Last year all that mattered was who could cap more. |
Re: lamancy in the games
Quote:
Not to mention that autonomous was so challenging no one got the vision tetra capped! ;) However, I suppose all this does is to prove that this year's average difficulty was about the same as last year's. I think FIRST is doing a pretty good job designing the games if all it comes down to is personal preference! :) |
Re: lamancy in the games
Quote:
|
Re: lamancy in the games
Quote:
|
Re: lamancy in the games
Quote:
|
Re: lamancy in the games
Quote:
|
Re: lamancy in the games
let me restate my question.... because most of you have been commenting immensly, The fact of lameness being with the IDEA!!!! of the game not the Whole idea of robotics, You all seem to be straying to far as to saying about how we win every competition and then your god or something and trying your very best to criticize the opposite of what I say. Debatable topic indeed but were talking about the lameness of the game idea rather than the lameness of the competition... maybe that will have some more mixed feelings
|
Re: lamancy in the games
Lame? I don't think so.
Last year when I first saw the game, I'll admit my first reaction was "that's it?" I mean, sure it was easy to understand from the audience POV, but.. it can't be hard or anything. As build season wore on, I was proven wrong- there were so many ways of going about this project! Then during competitions, I found myself holding my breath so many times, hoping that my team wouldn't fall over as it tried to cap, and it always seemed like forever when I was waiting for the score to come up. This year, at kickoff my first thought was that the game would fail to please. While I guess that's true for some.. This year has been so exciting for me! You can never really tell which way the matches will go- even with robots that seemed to have identical capabilities, I can never tell what will happen. As of now, I'm very fond of this year's game. It's easy for the audience to understand, there's options in what you can do, and it's a challenge for veterans and rookies equally. Teams can choose to specialize, or try get everything done. In my book, this game is marked as a success for the GDC. |
Re: lamancy in the games
Quote:
Or you might end up giving us an even better game. We'll never know until you try it. |
Re: lamancy in the games
Quote:
1. shooting balls through a goal from a distance, similar to basketball or rollerball (the original movie) 2. shooting or dumping balls into two floor level goals, similar to hockey or soccer, except there are two goals instead of one 3. Defined offense and defense periods. Many people are saying (complaining?) that this years game is the most... whats the word.. brutal ever, and that many robots are being damaged and flipped within the acceptable guidelines of the game 4. An auton period that for most matches determines the outcome of the match (statistically so far). This means robots cant blow off auton and do nothing - they have to do something if they want to win. 5. Six robots on the field at the same time. 6. edited to add: I forgot about King of the Hill on the ramps for 25 points at the end! so what would you add to make the game more interesting and challenging? Explosions? Chainsaws? |
Re: lamancy in the games
Quote:
-dave (still thinking fondly of the Krispy-Kreme-throwing game - too bad we could never figure out how to get the inflatable clowns to fit into the wet suits) |
Re: lamancy in the games
I'm not going to try to convince anyone that this year's game is or isn't "lame", as "lame" is a matter of opinion, but....
I will try to convince those who feel they have something to say, they should: 1. Do it without insulting anyone (as "lame" is a pretty harsh term to those responsible for whatever you're calling lame). 2. Have something constructive to say to improve things. My mom taught me that if you don't have something nice (or at least something constructive) to say, don't say anything. I have found that this is a good rule to live by. |
Re: lamancy in the games
Quote:
Oooh please not this again. |
Re: lamancy in the games
Quote:
When you say "robotics competition", 98% of people think "BattleBots". When you say "DARPA Grand Challenge", people just stare at you with gaping mouths. But I guess this is what FIRST is all about: Spreading the productivity of education and science to a society of high opportunity and dreams. I think that robotics will soon evolve into a spectator sport (televised, like BattleBots) that is almost (if not more) interesting than football or soccer. My thoughts alone are enough to eliminate the word "lame" form my vocabulary when it comes to FIRST. |
Re: lamancy in the games
As I've watched the games the last few years, I've noticed this phenomenon:
At the start of a regional, the game does look pretty lame. Last year, and at one regional this year, my team had me do scouting, so each match I focused on just one robot. I seemed to get a lot of really boring robots early in the regional--the ones that just sit there, or go in circles, or do other lame things. Face it, there a lot of lame robots out there early in the regionals. There are lame matches, too--one robot against three, for example. But I think this is because many, if not most, teams are still getting their robots up to speed--if they're not still building them! As the matches continue, the robots get better because they've been tweaked or fixed. The drivers get more practice. The autonomous code is finally capable of doing something useful. As a result, the matches get a little more interesting. Saturday afternoon, when top robots take the field, with top drivers at the controls, the game can become very exciting. Every one is putting out maximum effort. There are less penalties, because people have figured out the game. The contests are a whole lot hotter (and, yes, this year, the computer scoring can make things REALLY tense, especially when the referees have to contradict the computer errors in the finals... :ahh: ) I think this is true in any sport. It's the pro and college games that get televised, not the 8th grade PE classes. Why? Because the better players are more fun to watch. I first noticed this phenomenon in the 1984 Olympics when I went to see a sport I'd only read about: dressage (sort of like dancing for horses). As a horse lover, I was eager to see it. But in the earlier rounds, it looked really lame. The riders appeared to flop around on their horses, all uncoordinated. I was thinking, "Is this IT??" It was so boring we left our seats for an hour or two. When we came back, it was like seeing a different show. Horses and riders were working together, and the gold medalist, a German man on an athletic bay horse, put on an unforgettable show with his victory lap. He and his horse worked perfectly together. That one performance alone would have made our time and money spent there worthwhile. |
Re: lamancy in the games
Quote:
.. i think tahts a great idea... playing hockey with robots... lots of teamwork.. passing the puck.. good traction needed..lots of weight for pushing vs being able to stop without a lot of momentum... . i like.. i like a lot.. i might just have to make a post about that! ... this year the game is like football (field goals into the uprights.. . and the low goals are touchdowns...).. think about it ... |
Re: lamancy in the games
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: lamancy in the games
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 21:44. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi