Originally Posted by Cory (Post 858727)

It's not that difficult to explain the basic premise of Lunacy. The problem is it's nearly impossible for the casual spectator to follow and extremely boring.

I find it boring watching all the matches with a 4 robot cluster stuck in one corner for 1:30. I can't imagine how boring that must seem to people who have no idea what FIRST is and have never seen a robotics competition before.

Originally Posted by XaulZan11 (Post 858783)

In my opinion G-14 has been way over-blown. What percentage of matches were really determined by it? How much did it really prevent FIRST from achieving its goals?

Originally Posted by Chris is me (Post 858817)

This is a really good point. Our team has activated the rule 2 or 3 times, and every time we were in a position to get a G14, we had an alliance of high scoring robots, and we weren't using the Supercell anyway. There was a minor "uh oh we did too good" psychological effect, I guess?

Originally Posted by Brandon Holley (Post 858821)

I'm slightly confused by your post. While I do not really agree with G14, I understand why the rule exists. However, the post you quoted in your response is referring to how many times G14 actually had a play in a match. G14 would be affecting the match after you "activated" the rule...not during.

Originally Posted by Sgreco27 (Post 858803)

The other thing I didn't like about Lunacy was the super cell. Basically a human player had the ability to change the victor in a match that was within 15 points on both sides. I rarely ever saw a robot score a super cell.

Originally Posted by Dantvman27 (Post 858477)

Entertaining to watch: every person that i know that has watched FIRST events with me in the past and not knowing anything about robotics said this year was highly entertaining (over say, overdrive, which was one of the least entertaining games to watch). There was alot of robot interaction, high scoring, and just fun thigns to watch. Games like this and AIM high, IMO attract more spectators.

Originally Posted by bigbeezy (Post 858913)

09- no apparent strategy,

Originally Posted by Chris is me (Post 858919)

While I understand and partially agree with most of your concerns, I think Lunacy was one of the most strategy-oriented FIRST games in recent memory. You had to think 20 seconds ahead the whole time to win. I mean, it's certainly better than 2008 strategy wise, which was pretty much equivalent to Nascar in terms of strategy required.

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi (Post 858507)

Second, I see sportsmanship and professionalism as something you step onto the field with, not what you come off with. Meaning that if a team "blows you apart" or out of the water then how is that them not being professional? YOU as the losing team should know you played your hardest and that the other alliance did too. I don't see teams being maniacal about beating other teams when they know they can. Hell, at our regionals there are teams who can pummel others without really trying, but when we lose to them there is no distaste, there is no contempt, there is no lack of sportsmanship. We all play as we would in any other sport. If FIRST believes this is not the meaning of sportsmanship then perhaps they should reevaluate what professionalism means as well.

Originally Posted by bigbeezy (Post 858913)

05-great strategy, heavy objects lifted over 10ft, control a must, end game line not really important

Originally Posted by Dantvman27 (Post 858477)

This might be a little over dramatic, but i am bothered by all the complaining about this years game, because i for one, being a six year veteran of FIRST, loved this game, and heres why.


The floor/wheels: Totally changed the game, i loved that, in life, ur not always going to have the same challenge facing you when ur creating machines, we need something to completely throw us for a loop. it makes us better engineers.

The overkill rule: This rule really pushed the ideals of FIRST and tried to teach teams something FIRST always tries to say we are about, professionalism and sportsmanship. In other sports, cocky teams blow out the terrible ones all the time and they never stop, thats not good sportsmanship. FIRST was trying to say, hey we are different, we encourage respecting your opponent by not destroying them. my only complaint is i would have just made it one penalty for tripling their score, and removed the doubling the score

Human Player: Robots in real life are going to interact with people, and have tons of outside sources affecting them, so the robots should not only be able to be good scorers, but be able to evade the human players. It adds another layer of dephth to the driving strategy instead of just drive around, score, repeat, you had to avoid the human player as well


Entertaining to watch: every person that i know that has watched FIRST events with me in the past and not knowing anything about robotics said this year was highly entertaining (over say, overdrive, which was one of the least entertaining games to watch). There was alot of robot interaction, high scoring, and just fun thigns to watch. Games like this and AIM high, IMO attract more spectators.