Re: Next Year's Game?
 

All I'm going to say to this is, defense wasn't necessarily key this year; it was the combination of offense and defense. Also, as soon as the GDC makes a highly defensive game, the offensive specialists will start complaining about "brickbots" damaging them and winning just by driving around. (Or you get the team that thinks this is Battlebots--but a few penalties will often keep them in line.)

You have to have a balance of offense and defense, or the game is going to be really annoying to a lot of people. See 2001's 4v0 game or 2003's king-of-the-hill game. (Granted, 2003 wasn't all defense, but a defensive robot could sure beat an offensive robot with great ease!)

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

Whatever the game is I think it should be easily engaging for the person who hasn't seen a FRC game before, For example, Aim High, Rack and Roll, and Overdrive all were action-packed and entertaining to watch. Lunacy was in my opinion, a bit dull compared to previous challenges, in Overdrive the audience could easily tell when an alliance scored and who had won at the end. The outcome of a Lunacy match doesn't have that same effect.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

ok, well i like the more driver oriented things, cuz i am the driver....but what about use of the regolith and the carpet since they have spent so much money on it lol, and moveable things that your have to put in specific locations....or a mix of all the past games

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

Well, of course defense shouldn't be the only factor in a game, but I really think it should be important. Some teams just don't realize that the ability to take a robot out for the entirety of a match is important, which I think is silly.

What exactly do you mean when you say this year defense wasn't key? I think it was the most important this year than is has been in the past three. When 423 started playing defense in Philly, we won all of our matches hands-down.

I really liked Lunacy, since watching the mega-dumps was really fun. I don't understand what people mean when they say that it was hard to explain the game this year; have more balls in your opponents' trailers than yours at the end of the game; also, green balls are worth more than the purple ones. Also, how was it easier to tell who had won an Overdrive match versus who had won a Lunacy match? Sure, you could keep count better in Overdrive, but you could easily see the score for yourself on the field in Lunacy.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

Levels!
not just little end ramps or something, but series of levels, maybe like a king of the hill type game where you have to keep your robot specific game pieces in the circle at the top of 3 levels of platforms, i know this might lead to robot destruction but im sure the game design people could figure something out


oh and maybe isntead of two alliances of 3 how bout 4 alliances of two

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

Simple, really. You HAD to score to win. Even playing defense, you had to score to win. Scoring is offense, at least in this game. (It isn't always; 2005 is a prime example of defensive scoring...) So if you're playing defense most of the time, you have to be a) pinning, b) hoarding, c) harassing, or d) blocking most of the time, not scoring or loading, which the offensive robots did a lot. This takes you away from scoring-type things and may make you an easier target, depending on conditions.

Or, as an example of how defense doesn't win matches, 330. They played defense most of the time in many of their matches. But, they spent automode loading up, and gulped down any ball they happened to drive over. Once or twice a match, they stopped playing defense (or delayed starting) and SCORED. Scoring is offensive, remember?

Defense was also important in 2007. Keeping opponents from scoring, blocking them from doing the same to you, that's defense. Lots of it happened in 2007.

And, one final note: When a great offensive machine meets a defender, the defender merely slows the pace of the offensive machine. It cannot stop the offense, unless it is a truly great defender. There are still a few offensive machines that WILL BEAT A DEFENDER. Lots of teams played defense against 330 in 2007. Lots of teams also lost to said team, even 3 vs 1 against 330. Same with 1114 in 2007. Same with 67 this year. Same with 25 in 2006. The thing that most scares me is an offensive machine those drivers know when to play defense.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

I'd like to see the return of the Robocoach function, for instance you could receive bonus points during teleoperated mode for having the robot perform functions by itself, like picking up a game piece or scoring could count for 1-2 points extra.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

Heh: http://www.vexrobotics.com/vex-clean-sweep.shtml

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

we tried to have our robot do that in Lunacy, with function of the camera, to drive up to an opponent's trailer when it was locked on. the one problem from that problem was when we were told that we could not receive data from the robot. so that function was never used.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

I think that this years' game proved to be one of the most defensively-minded yet! Many games have offered the decision between scoring points vs. preventing the opponent from scoring. Every ball you prevent your opponent from scoring in Lunacy is exactly worth the value of one ball scored yourself (as was the case in 2008, 2006, and others...the nonlinear scoring in 2005 and 2007 made this a bit more complicated).

But this was the first game where defense ALSO contributed to scoring in a pretty direct way. Pinning an opponent to the corner not only prevented him from gathering and scoring balls, it also made for an easy scoring opportunity for human players and friendly robots. (Granted the pinning robot was therefore also a target, but a good defensive bot could make sure the pin was happening in a favorable spot on the field)

At the regional (and even Nationals) level scouting can be hit or miss, so sometimes the non-"flashy" machines are unfortunately overlooked. It's happened to us before, too. And many folks tend to think of defense as something that "anyone" can do, so they pick somebody who is above average offensively and try to force-fit them to that role. But that is simply not true, and I have many friends with medals who can tell them otherwise.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

Our rookie year it came home to haunt us. We were the third seeded team at Denver and could choose our alliance. Unfortunately, we chose bots that were similar to ours. :o Any veteran team will tell you the key to winning is to select a complimentary team. This will usually include one bot that is good at defense (Though not necessarily a bot designed entirely for defense) and two good offensive bots.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

I was wondering, if there is a mass amount of robotics teams in the near future, will alliances in future games be four robots instead of three? It was just a thought.

"\__(O.o)__/" <--- (shrugging face)

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

Maybe, I just don't think for a while. They would have to make the fields bigger, and that would mean more cost to set up, less ability for small venues to set up (off-seasons) and such. Just be patient, I think in the future it will happen.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

It all has to do with value - the cost per match. More robots per match is one way to get each robot out there more often, bringing the average cost down. In 2005 we went to 3 on 3 because FRC had grown to the point that the cost per match got too high.

While 4 on 4 is definitely a possibility as we continue to grow, we have also seen in the past year that something like FIRST in Michigan's model is another way to increase value, with several other side benefits.

Besides, the field can already look crowded with 6 robots. ;)

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

Keep the size of the field, reduce the size of the robots competing or have an interchange of sizes depending on the role of the robot on the field.

This is going to go over like a lead balloon.