Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 

True, but I believe Dean's comment was targeted at those who already are playing the professional sport. They overcame the odds and are now successful. I am not fond of blanket statements such as these. He implied that every "ball bouncer" has no life skills.

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 

Ehhhh... I wouldn't disagree with him. The sports players that tend to make the news most often have the maturity level of a two year old.

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 

Those are the ones the media chooses to focus on.
There are actual athletes who are good upstanding citizens. The media just tends to find them boring.

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 

Most of the ones I'm talking about were in the news because they were really good at what they do and then they just so happen to self-destruct in some of the most horrific ways possible. And lets be real here. The news media spent just as much time covering a Rhodes Scholar than they did covering someone who broke the law.

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 

Well then there are also plenty of great athletes that win at life. Like Tiger Woods! WOO

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?
 

My reaction was quite opposite. When I first saw the game in the Kickoff video, I loved it. I thought it would be a great challenge, be very fun to watch, and create interesting solutions. Over the last three days, I have come to really dislike it, though. <G14> was (in my opinion) not only thought through even less then <G22> from last year, the assumptions it is based upon are completely wrong. And make no mistake: this is a rule that will come into play constantly during every regional. I don't like the first update, which "elaborates upon" in a patronizing tone rules which were never there until now. The restrictions are overbearing, especially after the aforementioned update. The game places too much emphasis on the human player-don't get me wrong, a human player is a great idea, but this is too much.

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?
 

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?
 

FIRST has little control over suppliers, although they most likely already have a good supply of orbitballs.

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.

Are you so sure that the trailer messes things up? Have you tested this? or is this all just supposition. After looking at the design of the trailer, I believe it'll be far different then most people are assuming.

And whats the problem with jack knifeing the trailer? seems to me it might just be a good defense ;)

Who ever said you need a shooter to score? Hurding and collecting will be not only feasible but possible preferable.

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?
 

Are you talking about the floor? I wouldn't be so worried about that-yes, I am concerned that low-budget teams may be lacking in drive practice, but it does provide a legitimate challenge and surely everyone can find access to some sort of low-friction surface. I am more concerned about the balls-that is a very unique product offered by a single company (and only to the US!) and if the worst-case scenario happens, which it has, many teams will end up not being able to touch one. I'm wondering why they didn't just go with a more standard type of ball. Between these two issues and the trailer, I'm very worried that low-budget teams will be seriously lacking in practice.

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 

I was also concerned about wheels. The flooring material can be simulated using tile floor, the balls are also a concern however. Perhaps one of our teams outside the US could post how expensive/delayed AndyMark parts are.