Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 

Long time since I've posted, wow. I like that they went with something different. As a driver I think it's going to be fun learning how to drive on the new surface. It should be difficult for veteran teams as it breaks from the norm, but easy for newer teams as it's a relatively simple game.

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 

i must say this is a pretty good year for us rookies! we have no experience with omni-directionals, or any other fancy drive systems, so this is actually pretty sweet for us. plus living in north Idaho, we're used to driving in icy conditions, so this should be fun!:D

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 

This is my only concern with this game. Limiting us to the same wheels and not expanding outside the starting box brings back very bad memories of Aim High. I loved Aim High, awesome game, but I had one issue with it, there were a LOT of similar robots. (Yes I know that we could expand in 2006 just not above 60") I fear we will have robots where the drive trains are all the same and that worries me. There is a quote by Ken Patton about when he saw a team moving sideways it was inspiring to him floating around here somewhere. We more than likely WON'T see that this year, we might see something cooler (I hope we do) but I cannot help but worry if this year is stifling creativity.

Concerns about having a TON of the same robots aside this game presents one other concern to me. The robot that is literally a box on wheels can beat the precision engineered robot, to me that is NOT inspiration. To me that says to do the bare minimum because anything else is a waste of resources. Any game where a box on wheels is a viable strategy worries me.

Aside from those worries I almost like the game. I will wait until 2nd week (Kettering District Event) to pass judgement on this game but as of right now it looks interesting. I am seriously hoping my concerns are wrong because this could be one awesome game, it does throw everything we have ever known to the winds and I like that.

Edit: Plus, being a native Michigander who drives a rwd car on ice all the time I can say that driving on this field is gonna be FUN!

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 

Here in Austin, when it rains after a long dry spell, the conditions are very hazardous because of the oil slick on the roads. We see a lot of accidents on rainy days because of those conditions and the drivers' careless disregard for them.

It is a challenge but some common sense can be applied as well.

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 

I think that there is a purpose for that.

The last few years, a box bot could only score a few points, where now it can do a little bit more. This makes things easier on teams that either don't have the experience or resources. Remember, the economy limits sponsors...

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 

I understand that but if I put a box on wheels out I wouldn't be too inspired by it. I would be inspired by seeing 1114 dominate the field last year though. Frankly I am sick of the argument that FIRST has to cater to the low resource teams and make them equal to the great teams out there. FIRST is an organization for us to SHINE. <G14> is little more than an attack on great teams, it is saying that if you are an elite team against a team that can barely move you are to be penalized for success. Apparently FIRST doesn't want teams to be performing at their best.

And you can do a lot of pretty awesome stuff using nothing more than some hand tools.

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 

I'm intrigued by the game. My experience has been that it isn't the game itself that makes things fun and exciting, but rather what the teams do with it. The only year I came away from kickoff going "Yeah.... this is the coolest game EVER" was in '06. I never thought FIRST would let us SHOOT things! I'm not worried about seeing a lot of robots "the same" despite the size restrictions. When we had similar size limits in 06 at the two regionals I attended that year there was a huge degree of variety in the robots, well illustrated in the "Behind the Design" book from that season.

I don't think that teams who are from icy parts of the world will have any advantage over those from sunny places. Driving a robot is completely different from driving a car, not least in the sense that you don't have a "seat of the pants" feel for what your machine is doing.

What I AM concerned about is the availability of the Orbit Balls. I expect FIRST will be providing information on where they may be obtained, because it would be too ironic if FIRST were to ignore the COTS rules that teams have to follow...

Jason

P.S. One further concern is that the robot, at the end of the season, might not be a great demo robot because the first thing everyone will wonder is "why didn't they use good wheels?" Sure, lots of people will ask that and get the answer and learn about how that affected the design, but most will probably walk off thinking "Huh... I could do better than THAT."

P.P.S. And as for G14 being an attack on "Great Teams"... I am sure the truly Great teams will be able to take it in stride and still manage to shine. I'm not sure any team is shown at their "best" when they completely blow out a weak opposing alliance.

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 

Shhhhhhh.......

I like and dislike this game. I really don't like the lack of a definite autonomous mode/ autonomous objective. I think it'll be an OK game if it's played well but then again I fear we'll see a lot of matches with out of control robots going all over the field not scoring.

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 

Andrew,

I have to disagree with you here.

The game is not won with the best looking machine, nor the best machined machine, not the team with the most money, nor the team with the most mentors.

The game is won by the teams that best understand.
They understand the game, They understand their own machining capabilities, and they only build into their machine what is really required.

A box on wheels will never beat 1114 unless they completely understand themselves, their strategy, and the game at hand. And if they do, then I'll bet that there is a lot more than a box on wheels there if you look real close.

JMHO

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 

My Likes:
-The closest thing we will get to a water game.
-It's different and challenging which does give rookies a chance.
-The proven preplanned drive train isn't as effective.
-The game combines the shooting/open field aspect of '06 with the goals from '04 (the trailers).
-Very strategic play.

My Dislikes:
-The rules are VERY limiting to strategy.
-There is no objective on the field other than other robots.
-Rookie teams who can't move will cripple their alliance as they are a sitting trailer.
-G14 is a punishment and despite the fact that it "evens the field" it says to teams "don't do your best and show how good you are." IMO it will have little to no effect on any match because I don't believe that all 4 super cells will be used, but it is a psychological deterrent.
-FIRST picked a game piece that is no longer in production and is (so far) not providing us with any means of obtaining them.
-The human player is a GIANT part of scoring and takes away from the impact of the actual robot performance. Who had their human player practice the most instead of perfecting their machine?
-My biggest problem with the game is the renaming of every position. The names are childish and impossible to remember especially if they are to change it every year. What is the difference between the Coach and the Commander? and how is the payload specialist any different than human player? I understand why they theme FLL, but applying the same concepts to 9 year olds and adults just seems ridiculous.


+$0.02

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 

With the exception of the highest levels of play, this game will be boring. And all games are exciting when played by the best.

The floor/wheels will make this game very slow and cumbersome. The acceleration will be dramatically slower, and it will be hard to perform well for a vast majority of teams.
This is compounded by <G14> making many teams lay off the pressure and/or score for oppoenents.

This will likely be the worst game since I've started participatin in 2003. Rather than "levellin the playing field," they simply handicapped everyone. It will take great strides of engineering to make bots that would be only mediocre by previous year's standards.

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 

Those are the details running through my tired brain at kickoff each year. While everyone else is thinking about robot design, I'm thinking "Ok, how will this game be demonstrated to an audience of educators, potential sponsors, etc after April outside in tents, or in conference rooms? What stuff will need to be hauled around to demo? How can I explain this game in a minute or less, while sitting in the stands with some VIP or prospective mentor? How easy are the game pieces to acquire?
New this year is "that flooring looks pretty important." I do have some concerns about teams carrying robots on/off the field. And there goes the dancing...
And most importantly, "what are my earrings going to look like?" ;) http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/32129

Only have the earring thing answered so far...

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 

I think that is exactly what makes the game interesting. It puts both rookies and veterans on the same level in terms of driving. It will take a lot of practice to get used to the new environment.

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 

I don't think FIRST shoudl have gone to even out the playing field either... From experience I can say that people join FIRST because they see some cool robot doing amazing functions, performing in ways unseen before. With Lunacy this year, the actual functionality of the robot will be equal if not less of an effect of the human players throwing balls..

This game doesn't allow for enough creativity imo; however I am still looking forward to competition!!!

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 

Any team that can pour resources onto a machine and have it come out nothing better than a box on wheels worries me! If your machine does the same things as a box on wheels but with precision mill-work and expensive sensors and the whole thing is coated in lexan just for the giggles: congratulations that WAS a waste of resources. You want to talk about entrepreneurship? You want to talk about real-life applications? A check book is not an appropriate brute force tactic in real life, and because of that fact it is reasonable to propose that it probably shouldn't be considered one in FIRST.

This is pretty much about the minimums you design your bot for. A robox is a pretty solid minimum. If you design your robot in the abstract of "how much better does our design do the task at hand than showing up to the match with only a human player" that is a very low minimum. A slightly better minimum is "how much better does our design do at the task at hand than showing up with a robox?" Higher still would be "what will an average team do at the competition and how can we blow that out of the water?" and for the truly ambitious "what will a good team be able to do and how can we top that?" What you shoot for depends a whole lot on what your team feels ready to take on, but if you take on a low minimum threshold for what you consider to be acceptable performance in your design, don't be so shocked when your robot works no better than you designed it to. :p

You're totally right! A box has a very high performance this game as a minimum. I guess that means it is probably the lowest benchmark you can safely use when designing a good bot because you can already see how many teams are going to try it.