![]() |
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
Quote:
If you'd like to present your case further, there's more threads about that rule. But yea, its one of the reasons I don't like the game so far either. Remember teams... this is just day 3 so far. |
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
I dont think that veteran teams will be stooped down to rookie level again at all, actually i think the slippery conditions will just make rookies more confused.
|
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
Quote:
I doubt Dean Kamen would object to the "follow your dreams" mantra. When I was in 7th grade, I dreamed of building robots when I grew up. Who's to say that the 7th grader next door whose dream was to play basketball is any less valid? |
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
Quote:
Easier? I don't think so. And rookies will be even harder pressed. The robot designs this year will have to be just as intricate and though through as previous years ... just in different ways ... and that that worked before, may not work now, and I like that :D |
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
Quote:
|
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
Quote:
|
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
Quote:
There are actual athletes who are good upstanding citizens. The media just tends to find them boring. |
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
Quote:
|
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
Quote:
My original thought on this thread: Yes I actually do like this game, I think that it is VERY challenging with no real easy solution. No real easy solution means conflict, and through conflict we (usually) find truth. :D I'd also very much like to see some of the ideas that other teams have come up with. |
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
I think i've come to a final conclusion about this game
I don't like it FIRST has taken the side of the offense one too many times, for those of you who were around in 2004 and before, that was when real defense was played... defense wasn't tipping a trackball off the overpass at the last second or goigng to sit in a corner protecting your own goal. It was about getting up on a bar with a rotater so that you could deny anyone else who wanted to get on for that fifty point bonus, it was about being king of that hill in 2003 this game seems way to finesse, I know people are going to say, your going to see pinning and ramming, but at what cost, the hits might shift the direction of the robot, and the robot thats getting pinned has the traction advantage. not to mention the robot thats doing the pinning is also a easy target to score on for the other team FIRST has truly eliminated the word DEFENSE from its dictionary, thanks to this game and measures to reduce that word in games past. and in all honesty, i really think five years down the road, we might be talking about a big kids version of FLL. ...but then again, we have yet to see what teams can come up with, and how the game is played at the scrimmages or at week one events. when someone comes up with a truly inspiring design that actually works, thats when FIRST's true colours shine. EDIT: please don'g get me started on G14... honestly, it could cost a alliance a game when they really can't afford to lose it |
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
Quote:
And finally, in my opinion, the obvious effort to even the playing field in this game is, while well-intentioned, going to have the opposite effect. It is strikingly similar to what has happened in Formula 1, which used to be practically open in terms of car and engine design. However, lately there have been increasing efforts at regulation and standardization-some of them have been for safety and some to cut costs, but many have had as a stated goal the improvement of competition. However, they have had the opposite effect. In the past, teams could come up with really innovative ideas to provide an advantage, and many did; famous examples of which include the Tyrell P34 and theBrabham BT46B "fan car", which ironically enough is apparently banned in this competition just as it was in real life. These days, however, in order to eak out any improvement, teams must do hours upon hours of expensive wind tunnel work, use gigantic simulators to test any part thoroughly before even considering trying it, and basically spending millions upon millions of dollars for improvements of tenths of seconds. Lunacy will be similar-IMO, the most important factors in this game will be the human player, the drivetrain, programming, and the driver. The first factor is essentially a wash, despite some concerns over "basketball players" or the like. But the rest will not be. Sure, many teams will have to rethink their drivetrain and we will thankfully see the disappearance of the "trick" wheels, but the veteran teams will still have an advantage. We all know that. Programming will be even worse-I'm sure you have all seen the talk about here about traction control, anti-lock braking, and all the other three-letter abbreviations standard on new cars of the day. How do expect any programmer new to FRC to handle any of that? And given the new surface and quickly disappearing game pieces, the only drivers that will have much practice will be the ones on teams that can afford the game field, and in these economic times, there are not many of those. |
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
Quote:
OK I'll bite and say I am willing to say it isn't a valid dream to be an NBA player in 7th grade. Here is a simple way I can back that up. If you are a Really good BB player (or football or baseball if you prefer) I mean really good. You can wait tables because only the GREAT players will be able to make any money doing it. If you are a good singer/actor, ditto, only the GREAT ones seems to be able to make a living at it and even then... But show me an average engineer, heck even one who only got B's and C's. They can get a job as an engineer, what they trained for. Now that I have said that I want to revisit my first comment. I think a 7th grader should be encouraged to play basketball if they enjoy it, and if they are really good at it, maybe some after school teams to play on. But not at the expense of their education or being deluded that they can do it for a living. They might be able, but statistically they won't be able to. My 2 cents |
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
I think the game is a good concept, but they could have thought it through much better. The whole thing seems half-baked. The orbit ball supply problems, the fact that you can't tell the orbit balls apart, the misleading traction figures in the rules, the impossible to assemble trailers, G14...
One thing that bugs me is how the different parts of the gameplay don't synergize well. The low friction floor means the robots have to drift around the field, and that could have been really cool to watch, except for the fact that the trailer messes up the handling and makes eloquent maneuvers next to impossible. If the 'bots didn't need to be trying to tow trailers, watching them negotiate the regolith would be really interesting. Instead, we're going to be stuck watching robots struggle to stay in control while trying to make turns without jack knifing the trailer. Also, the low friction floor means that high speed collisions are inevetiable, which is likely the reason for the updated bumper rule (outlaws overhangs over the bumper perimiter). Without being able to overhang the bumpers, it becomes nearly impossible for rookie teams that don't have the resources to engineer and build an aim-able shooter to score. It seems like there's going to be a lot of boxes on wheels this year. |
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
The thing that initially bothered me like heck about Lunacy was the thought that teams up North/teams with lots of money are going to have a crazy advantage in terms of practice. Obviously a driver with enough practice is a critical element to the performance of your team, and a poorer team in a warm area 1. can't afford the floor and 2. lives where temperatures never get cold enough for us to make a playing field of ice! But I've heard that a waxed linoleum floor has about the same friction, so now I can pause to really appreciate the default-wheels rule. I feel like it levels the playing field considerably, and will force better designs instead of simply better materials/resources.
My new soapboax is, of course, G14. :rolleyes: |
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
Quote:
Orbit balls only come in 3 colors. I'm not colorblind but I also had a difficult time telling the balls apart. I consider it part of the challenge (Maybe use the camera to detect emptycells)??? Misleading traction figures??? I don't think thats the case. The traction figures are dependent on many factors such as cleanlyness of the wheels / surface , the particular run of wheel / surface, etc. Lets see you come up with a game that many smart people are going to try and find advantages in ... see how you fair. I know I'd be a difficult thing to do, you might want to cut them some slack. Quote:
And whats the problem with jack knifeing the trailer? seems to me it might just be a good defense ;) Quote:
I'd take a look at my own biases if I were you, and be prepared to be amazed at what these teams come up with. I know I'll be amazed. |
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
If FIRST looks to have teams think out of the box why must our robots' dimensions be confined within one?
Respect diversity- |
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
I would like to bring up a concern that came to mind last night at dinner, I understand why the GDC wants us to compete on a low friction. I have a small concern with the fact that all the teams have to buy a specific product from a single company. Im not worried about supply, I am worried that companies could lobby for the GDC to design a game using one of their products. Do I think AndyMark would do that? I would hope not. I just wanted to raise the concern.
|
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
Quote:
|
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
Quote:
|
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
Quote:
Go engineering! |
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
Quote:
Designing within a specific size requirement is pretty typical in the real world. Fixtures cannot take up all of your bench space, a customer wants to put your device inside his without changing his envelope, etc,etc,etc. This "box" is just another challange. |
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
Quote:
Knowing Andy and Mark, I would presume that AndyMark made very little, if anything, from the KoP stuff. They may have even donated some of it. |
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
Quote:
I agree, Andy and Mark probably wouldn't take advantage of the situation but other companies might. |
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
The more I think about this game, the more I appreciate it for its complexity. The low-gravity simulation 'ice', the trailer you can't control, the strict size limit...
FIRST has, for what I believe is the first time, actually limited the ability of teams to engineer around a problem, and is forcing them to live with known problems to greater or lesser degrees. That makes it really rather more like a real engineering challenge than any previous game, IMO. Put on your rose-colored glasses and look at this game for what it is: a brilliant engineering challenge. Patrick |
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
I think the game is going to be really fun, and I'm interested. However, I do not like the increased human interaction. Human players could potentially score more points than the robots. If your robot dies, the shooters can still score! Last year if your robot died, tough luck! Just about every team I talked to at Kickoff said 'Grab a basketball player and you're good.'
I doubt it'll be that easy, but I would prefer the competition to be more centered on the robots than the people. I see the low-traction environment as a challenge, not something to get mad about like some folks. The restrictions on design, however frustrating, are part of the challenge. 'The songs you grow to like never stick at first' -Fall Out Boy, Dead on Arrival |
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
I appreciate the view that some take of the low friction floor being a good design challenge (although I believe it's just a limitation, and in any real low-gravity rover would just keep speed down), the problem with thinking of it as any other engineering challenge is that its a fabricated rule. I may not be able to change the surface of the moon through complaining, but I can complain that someone making rules to simulate the surface of the moon is not creating a fun game in addition to a legitimate challenge. Although the likelihood of the latter complaint changing anything is probably smaller than the first's...
It's sort of like NASA telling its contractors that the conditions of the moon and that they want a rover for it, but since they don't want any unfair advantages the contractors must not design their robots to use anything to overcome the limitations of a slippery surface. No paddle/fins on the wheels, no treads. In fact, they tell the designers that since they found these cool wheels in the warehouse, they must use the super slick wheels. I completely understand the intent of the challenge, but since the challenge charades as a simulation of reality it feels ever more artificial and grating. Abstract games, such as tossing enormous balls around, don't have this problem because they don't take themselves more seriously than as games. Oh dear... I suppose it's time to move away from the psychology of it all... ... No, wait! I've got one more! Like others have said, the 2008 game was great for observers since the game pieces were very large, and it was very clear when points were scored (on the other hand, penalties could be very finicky and difficult for the audience to see), so the audience really had something to watch. FRC is foremost a robotics competition, so the design challenge of the game should come first, but the quality of the game as a game is also important. If Dean's goal is to increase public interest in FRC, his objective should not have been to make the game more esoteric and less interesting. There aren't going to be any surprises (unless someone can actually spot that supercell going into a trailer, and I guarantee that one hail-mary throw will decide 70% of matches if it gets in), and the winners will be determined after a game through bean counting. Robots will lurch across the field slowly, turn slowly, jackknife slightly more quickly, impact each other, fail to score on each other, and slowly escape back to the carpet to run around collecting balls quickly. In the same way that a chess game would be utterly boring and perplexing to anyone without knowledge of the rules, this game is only going to be interesting to those who appreciate the design limitations and obstacles of the game overall. And unless everyone in the audience has read the entire manual to know that the theoretical maximum acceleration of any robot on the field is X.X ft/s due to the coefficient of friction, and that the robots cannot extend past the bumpers, they are all going to wonder why everyone decided to make such crappy robots that can barely move and score. It's not like this is going to be a terrible game. It will be fun for participants. I just think the GDC could have given us something more fun and interesting. They put so many limitations on everything this time around that there are going to be very, very few variations. Even in 2008, where I thought there would only be 2 types of robots at first (lifters and runners), since designs weren't limited except by starting configuration we got lifters, runners, shooters, hybrid lifter/shooters, and all the variations that come with the different drive trains (tank, car, swerve and all the derivatives). This year it's (although I may be wrong, I honestly don't know what else will work) dumpers with either tank or car steering. Shooters are going to be attempted, but will probably be impractical for most teams. Sure, the mechanisms might be different, but the effect is the same. Creating challenging field elements is more interesting than forcing the robot to contribute to the challenge. Make the field have random height variations every few feet, so that robots with a suspension system would have an advantage over robots without, but robots without any suspension would still be able to drive decently and accomplish other goals independent of driving. Trying to level the playing field among elite and fresh teams is pointless and even counterproductive; I've always viewed the desire to limit "elite" teams a policy of envy (some limitations, however, are good to keep it all fair), especially since I look to their designs to see the limit of what is possible with the game. Sure, I might be envious that my team doesn't have the machining capacity to produce a 7 pound frame that can hold elephants while incorporating a suspension system and the ultimate manipulator of utter win, but the fact that some team did have the ability to do that and pulled it off is still impressive to me, and I enjoy seeing the most sophisticated design solutions to a problem. Besides, if some team does score the next amazing design partnership with Toyota or something, that means it's their turn to "abuse" the brainpower and construction capability that it entails. Oh, and just to be more negative, the names are silly. Not that it is bad, but if you want FRC to be taken seriously, don't call everything by silly names such as payload specialist and moon rocks. It just screams "nerds playing space commander" to the average person. If you disagree, substitute football positions with the new FRC monikers. The quarterbacks are payload specialists? The coach is the mission commander? The field is the moonscape? NASA gets away with it because they are nerds in space, so they get to pull it off and everyone keeps a straight face. Oh, and perhaps because they popularized the terminology to begin with. Bleh... once again, I make a post too long to be bothered with. But at least it's out there now... |
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
Quote:
|
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
I did at first...a lot, mostly because all the unreasonable restrictions. But, now as were getting down to work, I think its going to be really interesting. The one thing I still don't like is how much humans are involved. But, the rest i think is a good challenge:yikes:
|
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
As with what Hanna said, I do not like how impactual human players might end up being in this years game but that i guess wont be seen until competition. Other then that I think the game is pretty good...
|
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
I did a quick search for Human-Robot Interaction. Several links were made available, including one that I read regarding NASA and future work on the moon.
If you look at the entire game, what kind of game is it? Is it just a game of competition where teams win or lose, or does it provide more opportunities to explore areas like HRI? We are often limited by our thinking and our own perceptions of what we think we see. Sometimes we do that without delving into the opportunities and information provided, to see how we can expand our thinking, perceptions, awareness, knowledge. .02 |
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
Quote:
All of the restrictions fall into one of three categories: 1. Safety (protruding edges, proper shielding, etc.) 2. Fairness ($$ limit, powering, usage of parts, etc.) 3. Challenge (size, weight, wheels, etc.) I'm surprised to see so many FIRSTers complaining about the challenge aspect of it. I think one *could* make a legitimate complaint about the human player aspect, but honestly, I think a well-automated turret will be a better scorer than the humans. You're looking at a 10" thick erratically-moving donut into which you're throwing 9" balls -- doable, but it's going to be harder than people give it credit for. Patrick |
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
As with any other game, I would expect that the impact of the human players will vary at the different levels of play. In the finals and at the championship in Atlanta, I would expect that the matches will be more exciting, with teams that have really thought through the problems and come up with some creative solutions. That will make the game interesting enough when everyone gets out there on the field and really puts the game to the test.
On another note, I would really like to give my seal of approval to the game. As a teacher, I will be using the things we do, including video footage of robots sliding, calculations of friction and driving techniques with my students when appropriate. To be able to relate the things that happen in the game to a general physics classroom is always very valuable to me. |
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
I like the general idea but still am sort of frustrated with the low traction floors
|
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
Quote:
Hail Mary throws are generally just that, high risk, high reward attempts. A team who does a Hail Mary pass in the last play of the Super Bowl because they are down by 5 points does it because they know they will lose. I think a piece like that keeps things exciting. Look back to 2004, hanging and the 2x balls were able to swing whole matches in the last second. I recall RUSH losing two events because our partner's hanging mechanism failed in the last 5 seconds of our matches. It made us constantly have to be on our feet instead of being able to get so far ahead that we could just stop caring. Quote:
Also, on your list, where does <G14> come in? That is the ONLY issue I still have with the game. Other than that I think it will be a lot of fun to watch and to play. |
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
Quote:
I am laughing at your final conclusion. Not because of what it is, but because you labeled it a "final conclusion". |
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
[quote=Andrew Schreiber;796727Also, on your list, where does <G14> come in? That is the ONLY issue I still have with the game.[/QUOTE]
I see it the way I see just about everything else with these games... It's just one more parameter to take into consideration when playing. Patrick |
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
Wow, my last post was rather scatterbrained and probably only contained complete statements in my imagination... I think it's all in there, just not well organized at all...
Lunacy is an effort to do four things at the same time. G1. One, it is a design challenge for FRC teams. G2. Two, it is a game with clear objectives and rules (and ideally should be fun/interesting). G3. Three, it is an attempt to simulate a real-world application of robots. G4. Four, it should encourage interest in technology and attract future participants. I believe that is the order in which the objectives should be in priority. The fourth item is more of a FIRST goal rather than a game design goal, but it should be kept in mind while designing the game overall. All of the items are interrelated, but G3 is especially emphasized this year. I just think there are problems in that item G3 overtly influenced G1 and is conflicting with items G2 and G4. The game isn't going to be as interesting as purely a game (yes, it is interesting to us as work through the design challenge), and the simulation aspect is detrimental to generating more interest in FIRST because the game itself isn't as interesting and everything about it is somewhat sillier (although the earlier esoteric titles weren't that much better, they did seem more serious). -Sidenote: I'm a chemical & biomolecular engineering major; I know esoteric naming schemes! =D In designing the engineering challenge, three things are considered: D1. The design of the field (including goals) D2. The design of the game piece D3. The design of the robot With another consideration about how the robot interacts with other robots, and all of this being kept within the realm of safety. Ideally, D1 and D2 should provide the majority of the challenge with minimal restrictions placed on D3 (the robot). A well designed game will allow for finite general types of robot designs simply through field design and game piece design without explicitly limiting robot design to such types. Although only a few general types of robot are feasible, many variations can be had on those generalities because of open design allowance, so it is highly unlikely to have large numbers of extremely similar robots. Also, a relatively open design is a favorite of most designers, even if the field elements or game pieces severely limit design possibilities anyways. I, at least, would prefer a field in one game to have a divider in the middle with a 40" tall slot in it rather than a forced 40" height limit on the robots. Sure, to move around the field the robot would need to be less than 40", but I like the fact that the design of the robot is influence by an objective (crossing the field) rather than a rule forced on robot design (you must keep under 40"). Anyways, G3 once again rears its ugly head and has influenced D1, D2, and D3. Normally, this wouldn't be a bad thing, but in order to make G3 work, G1 is changed to be closer to simulation. In order to do that, D1 and D3 must be altered greatly, which creates the challenge of G1, which fits in the scheme of G3. But I argue that G1 makes a relatively poor game (G2), which is bad for G4 (encouraging participation), and frustrates designers for being limiting on the robot. A teflon coated floor covered in lube would have relatively similar effects as this regolith and wheel combination, but without the need for wheel limitations. It's an impractical game, but it might be preferred by some for having less robot design limitations (even though the effect is the same). Sorry for all of the numbers and crap, I just felt that it would be quicker than writing a thesis paper on the subject and assaulting you with another wall of text. Not that this is short anyway... I don't hate this game. I like the idea of making the robots goalpieces and such, I just think the overall game idea was influenced by the goal of making it a simulation of driving on the moon to the point of being detrimental to other aspects of the game. I just think the GDC could have done better. For example, deployment size limitations. Obviously, the GDC wants to prevent decapping/blocking and also wants to keep everything safe for collisions by forcing robots not to have stuff sticking out. I would argue that although they probably already reasoned that an arm manipulator is a bad design choice for this game (I agree), they don't need that rule to achieve their objectives. Just make blocking/decapping a penalty if done intentionally, and give penalties for dangerous manipulator positions during collisions (as if smashing your arm against another robot's frame was something that you wanted to do anyways). Presto, same effect achieved, very few people will actually build far out of the protection area of the bumpers, and no one will complain about deployment restrictions. Some might complain about the possibilities of new penalties, but I think it would be worth it just for the freedom, even if few will take serious advantage of it. Hope that was a little clearer... |
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
Quote:
I have read too many people say things like "Lunacy is suppose to do this, but doesn't so its a bad game". A good example of this the percieved attempt to level the playing field. I don't remember in the rule book that the game is suppose to level the playing field. I think the criticism of the game that it doesn't level the playing field are really irrelevent. Did Aim High or any other favorite games actively level the playing field? Probably not too much, so why does Lunancy need to in order to be a good/successful game? |
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
No one knows what the GDC's actual goals are except themselves, of course. I am putting words in their mouths, but I believe it is a reasonable design criteria. We do know what FIRST's goals are:
Quote:
It IS a game with a clear set of rules, restrictions, and objectives, as described in the competition manual under section 7, The Game. In my mind, it should ideally be an interesting and fun game. The same is implied by the introduction to the competition manual under section 0.1: Quote:
It is a simulation in at least some aspects with a moon theme. The game is called Lunacy. The most abundant game objects are moon rocks. The field is called the crater. The surface is called regolith. The coefficient of friction creates a similar effect to driving on the moon (I cannot cite this specifically, but I believe either Kamen or Flowers said this in the kickoff). It is not specifically stated that this is a lunar simulation, but there are so many intentional similarities that I am comfortable in saying that it is. But this is also an assumption key to my argument above. It is possible to argue that it isn't, but in my post above I assume that this is true. It is most likely designed to encourage interest in technology and attract future participants. This is found in the fundamental missions statement on the FIRST website (previously quoted in this post). However, the game design itself may not be the way in which they hope to spread interest in technology. I think that is an unreasonable assumption (the competitions are the main thing that FIRST does), but it could be said that FIRST encourages interest through teams, and relies on teams to recruit more people. But the teams are formed because of the competition, and it would certainly be in the best interest of FIRST to design competitions that fostered greater interest in technology and engineering (again, as stated above). I grant that it may not be a significant design criteria for the GDC, but if their mission statement is to be believed, it should be at least present in game design decisions. I agree that I did not support those four points initially, and thank you for the encouragement to further flesh out my position. However, I'm perilously close to writing a miniature thesis paper now with how long this is getting. It's not going to change anything, I'm just trying to get in the heads of the GDC and figure out what they were thinking and why. |
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
Quote:
Not that I would know anything about that. |
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
Quote:
|
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
it seems like an interesting game. low traction could make the game intense, or a pain in th rear
|
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
There's going to be a lot of bots sliding everywhere so remember to wear your safety glasses
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:57. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi