|
New Game Criticism
As the new game comes out, so do our thoughts and words. I am the most avid supporter of speaking my mind, and I suggest that you do. There is no right or wrong in what you say but the manner in which you speak matters very much.
I speak my mind and everyone knows of it, but the most important thing I can suggest you can do is to provide a follow up response at a later time. I have actually been there and done that and with my experience I have learned thoughts change and grew to love a game I hated so much. Also when criticizing here is some helpful advice. My old EE prof always said, "on my evaluations please do not write 'you suck' or 'this course sucked' say 'this course sucks, because....'" Pavan Dave Note: Dave, don't worry, my response is well on its way! |
Re: New Game Criticism
I miss autonomous period scoring bonuses. They made autonomous period actions so exciting for the team whose robot successfully does what it's intended to do after so many hours spent making it listen...
Other than that, though, I can't find anything I dislike right off the bat. |
Re: New Game Criticism
Quote:
|
Re: New Game Criticism
There is a bonus, ......
Overall, I like it. |
Re: New Game Criticism
Dislike:
I dislike the game because of its restrictions. The ball has to stay on the ground, it can't enter 3" inside the robot frame. It seems like they are making sure teams use a kicker of some sort. Like: I like the idea of getting to focus on the drive train so much. We can really get nit picky with it and do some things we haven't done in the past. |
Re: New Game Criticism
Dislike: Yellow Cards for moving the robot over a Bump, and for taking it off a Tower without a ref's direction/supervision.
|
Re: New Game Criticism
I dislike the lack of point bonus for autonomous, but the bots are all lined up so any shot balls can't be blocked by the opposing team, so that is a bonus (to an extent).
I also dislike the rules about how much the balls can go in to the robot, and the chaining robots idea, but everything else seems really good. Overall, I like the game. |
Re: New Game Criticism
Seconding the autonomous mode dislike. As a programmer, I really liked games like 2006 and 2008 where autonomous was a separately-scored section where a skillfully built robot and control software could score some serious points. The way it is in this game (and 2009 and 2007), the best you can do is get yourself an extra 15 seconds, or 12.5% more play time than your opponents.
However, apart from the relatively low score, this autonomous mode should be pretty good. A well-done robot should be able to score from the far-away section, or at least move the balls into the alliance's near section. I look forward to champs when 6 balls go flying into the chute in 15 seconds. Finally (and another like): Unlike last year, there isn't really any "penalty" for trying in autonomous: if you attempt to kick a ball and fail, it doesn't really do your team any harm. Last year, if you dumped all your 10 balls in an attack and failed, you lost a LOT of balls and it'd be difficult to recover from that. Another dislike is the shortage of game pieces. I think 20 would be better, but I assume that the GDC tried it with a variety of game piece counts and found this optimized something, so I'll just roll with it. In general, I think I like the game. It should be fairly action-packed: robots precariously navigating bumps, balls flying over bumps, balls falling from the top, it should be good. |
Re: New Game Criticism
Like the game.
Dislike lack of scoring system possibilities. Like the new ranking system for seedings. Dislike Yellow card for moving robot, its just asking for accidents to happen. on the plus side= people will be super careful. All in all it gets a +10 |
Re: New Game Criticism
The autonomous period bonus is definitely there! I would expect this to be a relatively low scoring game (as compared to other years). During the autonomous period, you are given the opportunity to score without any defense by the opposing alliance. Also, the fact that the balls should be returned to the playing field before the autonomous period ends, means that when Tele Op begins, you still have the same number of balls available to be used in game play.
Likes: Easy to understand game for spectators, simple scoring methodology, wide variety of types of bots that can play this game, the yellow/red card (during qualification rounds) only effects the offending team - not the whole alliance. Unsure: Match seeding points ... still need to think that one over (But easy enought to track from a scouting perspective. Dislikes: Not a big fan of the towers - it will probably block some shots, as they bounce off them (and wonder how many will build a 7 foot tall bot for that), number of penalties. Best regards, Steve |
Re: New Game Criticism
I like this game because I felt that last year's game had too much reliance upon human players to make the points. With this, I feel that it is a much larger chance for the robot itself to stand out.
|
Re: New Game Criticism
I absolutely am looking forward to this game. After Lunacy, which pretty much had one objective, I am SO glad to think of the variety of robots we're going to see this year. Right now I feel that there is a LOT more to think about regarding scoring, penalties, robot configurations, etc.
The ONLY criticism I have of this game so far is the same exact thing that StephLee said: I don't really see very much incentive for teams to create an in-depth autonomous mode. Moving balls into your zone (if you start in the far or middle zones) seems like a smart idea, or maybe scoring the one ball in autonomous mode could work, but I really wish that they did something like double-scoring balls in auton mode, or giving a point for each ball in your zone in the end of auton. |
Re: New Game Criticism
Seeing as the game is less than 12 hours old, I'm not really going to criticize much of the game until it has digested further. And my initial reaction is rather positive to this game, seems like it has a lot of potential.
The one qualm I shall raise is with the new ranking system. While I will reserve judgment as to how it will impact the tournament and rankings, it seems to conflict with the increased emphasis on similarities to sports and viewer friendliness. We got a game that should be easy to keep score with, except the crowd will now have to bust out the calculators to figure out what that actually means for their teams rankings. The W/L/T formula is what all sports fans are familiar with, and is much more viewer friendly. |
Re: New Game Criticism
Quote:
|
Lots to like
Lots to like (imho)
I suspect that by the end of the season it will be considered one of the best games FIRST has had in the 1st 20 years. Joe J. |
Re: Lots to like
Quote:
|
Re: New Game Criticism
I generally like the game. It's the best since 2007.
I like how it keeps the familiarity with a game such as soccer. It also gives rookie teams or teams without much machining ability to perform very well. Some of the rules need some specification. One that stands out is G29. Not descriptive, and seems really harsh if a robot becomes disabled (such as flipped) on the opposing side. I do like the bonus. It adds pressure to all teams to think of certain ways to grab one another and how to create a strong enough connection to withstand the weight of multiple robots. The bonus can be worth anything from 2 to 8 points from my understanding (2 points for just one robot, 8 points for one robot (2pts), then 2 robots attached to the one hanging (6pts). It adds a lot of points if the teams can work together. One last thought. I really do like the ramps though. Just a personal favor. |
Re: New Game Criticism
Overall, I like it. I do have a few issues with it though.
First of all, you are pretty limited to what you can do with the robot, in terms of design. It pretty much makes no sense to make a robot higher then 16"-17". I'm also not a fan of how the ball can't be more then 3" inside your frame. Plus I'm not sure if I understand the whole seeding thing. But overall I like it, and it should be a lot of fun as a driver. |
Re: New Game Criticism
Quote:
|
Re: Lots to like
I usually hate FIRST games right off the bat, to this I will be honest. (go back to all my treads and see the kind of gripes I've made) And yes, I had a bunch of problems with this game once I saw it.
However, after talking about it with a few people and reading over some of the very complicated rules, I am rapidly warming up to this game. I really like it. And the thing I love the most: Scores are in increments of 1. It's about time we get simple scoring methods in these games. And really, the things I dislike this year, are rather petty. I can claim that there won't be much innovation done as all robots effectively need to be are boxes, but I thought of a few interesting ideas once I put those thoughts aside. Quote:
|
Re: New Game Criticism
Definitely spectator friendly. It's going to be intense when robots fight for balls in the middle, and when robots try to block other bots.
And I'm looking forward to seeing robots that steal balls from other robots. Almost like Lunacy, that was crazy fun. This time, spectators will actually be able to understand it. I don't know if there is much of an advantage to climb the tower though... |
Re: New Game Criticism
Hey guys,
Im posting on here because it is called game criticism, but this is more of a criticism of the amount of info on the game and materials. Please check this thread and see if you can answer the question: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...threadid=79754 I am very sorry that this does not have to do with the subject, but it is important. I appreciate it very much! Thanks, Phil |
Re: New Game Criticism
Quote:
|
Re: New Game Criticism
Quote:
|
Re: New Game Criticism
Quote:
|
Re: New Game Criticism
Quote:
The only thing that seems sorta iffy is the autonomous, like what others have mentioned. However, remember that none of the other opposing robots will be defending the goal, meaning that if you manage to score all 6 balls into the goal, you get 1 more point than a robot hanging from a robot hanging from the tower! |
Re: New Game Criticism
All in all, I like the game. It's considerably more simple than Lunacy, and the scores are all added (that is, there are no confusing, game changing multipliers). I also like how there is less emphasis on the human players this time around, so the focus is more on the bots.
The one thing I'm wary of is the Tower-climbing part. It seems like it would be a little difficult to develop a method of effectively climbing/hanging from it. |
Re: New Game Criticism
Quote:
|
Re: New Game Criticism
Quote:
|
Re: New Game Criticism
Quote:
|
Re: New Game Criticism
Quote:
But I'm not an engineer so I am sure I will be proven wrong. |
Re: New Game Criticism
Hate the seeding point rules. If my alliance plasters the other alliance, then we're punished??? So basically, my alliance will have to allow the other alliance to score points on us?
This really doesn't make much sense to me, someone please tell me I'm reading this wrong! P.S. I understand Gracious Professionalism and that "robots are just the vehicle", but this rule does no one any favors. (at least the way I understand it). |
Re: New Game Criticism
All in all I think I like Breakaway so far. The fact that there are only 12 balls, and that recycling them back to the field takes a while makes me think that this game may rely heavily upon an alliance's effort to block the other team from scoring, rather than racking up a ton of points. If you stop the opposing alliance from scoring, you stop balls from being returned to them, and eventually they will lose control of the balls all together. An excellent strategy would be to sit in the middle zone and try to control the other alliance's balls as they return to play.
Also, the use of the bumps and the return of the pullup bar are going to be a key player in how robots are made. Although, I have a feeling that a lot of teams will choose to build robots that transcend the bumps, rather than traveling through their underpasses. A well built robot will be able to handle the bumps fairly easily, and the ability to have a taller robot will pay off if a team wants to hang from the pullup bar in the finale. This could very easily be the deciding factor in who wins a match, because the scoring will be so low. Long story short: I like this game because it relies heavily upon strategy, rather than shear scoring potential, and I cant wait to see what kinds of designs teams come up with. |
Re: New Game Criticism
Something I really dislike (being a programmer) is the autonomous. If the code messes up, and I cross the white line....well, it's pretty much over.
Although, I really do like the concept of robots falling over, and having a S.R.S. (Self Righting System) |
Re: New Game Criticism
Quote:
But here is where I think you are mis-reading it.... Actually, let me encourage you to head over to this tread for a discussion on the "game theory" that it generates. http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...threadid=79708 Best regards, Steve |
Re: New Game Criticism
This game really looks to me to be a return to some FIRST games of old (specifically 2003 and 2004). The likes:
The few dislikes:
Good luck everyone! |
Re: New Game Criticism
Quote:
|
Re: New Game Criticism
Quote:
|
Re: Lots to like
do not like the equation you have to use to be able to know when to put the balls back into play
|
Re: New Game Criticism
im not a fan as of now, because i think it will be boring to watch with only 12 balls and only being able to "posses" 1 ball at a time.
I feel that the GDC is taking away things that could really take FIRST to the heights that everyone wants it to be with limiting so much that the robots can do.... What i mean by this is the last couple of years i have felt that there has been one or two rules limiting something with the robot or in the game that would have made the game more exciting to watch or given teams a chance to really have diverse robots. I do like the fact that there will be (hopefully) diverse robots designs and strategies. I also like that, as of right now, i can't think of THE 1 strategy or design that will be (near) impossible to beat, like i have been able to the last several years. |
Re: Lots to like
Quote:
That is plenty of time. You don't need to know the equation to be able to put the balls back into play. Why? Because you should always put them into play ASAP so you never run into that problem to begin with. Some teams will probably try to manipulate the timing, but pretty much all of them find that it's too much effort and doesn't really work since it takes so long for the ball to go down the rack (the robots will have moved by then). Anyways, onto my likes and dislikes... Likes: Spectators can understand it. Spectators can understand it. Spectators can understand it. Spectators can understand it. Spectators can understand it. It's similar to a game I know and love. I love the field layout. Lots of strategy. Pretty much everything, actually, except seeding. I like the first point a lot, as you can tell. Before, there really wasn't much point in having someone watch it because they wouldn't understand it because it was unnecessarily complex. The strategy part is also important. Ex. Do you make a bot that goes over the bumps or through the tunnels? Going over the bumps is more flexible, but is high-risk high-reward due to the risk of flipping, unless you design your bot right (plenty of ways to make it anti-flip, but make sure your driver gets momentum before trying to drive up the ramp). Also, do you make a bot that can hang, have an easy time getting on top of the tower, or both? Do you make your bot as a defender, offender, midfielder, or a balanced one, yet maybe not as effective as its position? Do you make your bot shorter to go under the tower, even though it'll be harder to hang at the end/let your opponent shoot over you easier? *coughwhyshorterisn'tnecessarilybettercough* Lots of stuff I like, actually. It's designed well. Just one little thing... Dislike: Seeding. It's confusing. I want W/L/T, dang it. It's something that is simple, works, and easy to understand. |
Re: New Game Criticism
Quote:
|
Re: New Game Criticism
a definite pro to this game is that game pieces are easily obtainable at a local sporting goods store, unlike the scramble to order or find orbital balls like last year's game. :P
|
Re: New Game Criticism
I like the game but the seeding points just seem wrong. Coaches will need a spreadsheet to try and figure out what to do during a match.
|
Re: New Game Criticism
Quote:
|
Re: New Game Criticism
Quote:
There is also the risk of running over the center line. see <G28>. |
Re: New Game Criticism
Quote:
Criticism of Breakaway: Not enough extremely damaging judgment calls or extremely easy accidental penalties. Also, gameplay and scoring are far too understandable, and the scoring electronics look entirely too reliable. I've gotten used to these little flaws and quirks so I'm at a bit of a loss without them in this game. (That means I like the game this year.) I'm currently ambivalent about the seeding scoring. I can see the point they're driving at, and I think gaming the system will be rare... But the Elims are definitely a totally different game this year. |
Re: New Game Criticism
From the looks of the challenge, i think the GDC hit a home run as far as a spectator game.
Of course, that can only be determined when the events start.. |
Re: New Game Criticism
I really really like the contrasts that arise between this years game and last years game.
Consider: Playing Surface - "Regolith" v. Carpet Wheels - Plastic v. whatever you can think of Human Player Influence - Scoring v. No Scoring Field Obstacles - None v. Bumps Scoring Zones - Mobile v. Stationary End game - Supercells v. Bar Game Scoring - High v. Low Penalties - Low v. High Game Objects - All contained within the robot v. None contained with in the robot The only things that carry over are the 2 alliances of 3 robots, and balls. Personally, I think the seeding system needs work, but we'll see how that turns out. I'm also not such a big fan of the bumper rules, but I see how the game necessitates them. Overall, Nice work GDC! |
Re: New Game Criticism
I really think that this years competition will be much more fun to watch as an observer. First off, it looks like a fair amount of robots will be falling over due to the 45 degree incline that most will try to go over. Also, the ways that you can score are very simple, which will make almost any observer able to understand who is doing what and why.
|
Re: New Game Criticism
I'm honestly really excited about this game. I think it is one of the best designed games I have seen in a while for a number of reasons.
The first reason is how this game is discouraging teams from just dusting off old designs. Can the California drive system take those bumps? Perhaps, but I think some other drive systems might take them better. This is a better opportunity for students on experienced teams as it puts more design work into the arena...which is a great opportunity for everybody! It is also helpful to rookies as older teams do not have the advantage of having such a large portion of their robot already worked out. Speaking of rookie friendly, way to go on a cheap field that is easy for a low-budget team to mock up! This field is small, cheap, and can collapse into storage when practice isn't running. It is very realistic for even a very modestly funded team to push aside tables in a cafeteria and be able to mock up a whole field. I'm not very excited about the anti-expansion rules. I would love to see some expanding field-control robots. I understand that this promotes teams to have to work on good playing strategy instead of just designing a robot that overcomes the issue, but I do like systems which promote spending a lot of time coming up with a really good, innovative design. There are lots of venues which celebrate good strategy, including traditional sports, but the celebration of good design is a fairly unique opportunity found in FIRST, and I would like to see it emphasized more. I'm a little bit concerned about how high those bumps ride against the wall. I don't think a robots will come flying out of the playing field often or anything, but man would it ever suck if one did. I think this is going to be a pretty low-scoring defensive game, with those bonuses being surprisingly relevant, and penalties being frightening and potentially game-changing. I'm not excited by the concept of a new ranking system. This is because many of the better teams design their robots to do well on Saturday afternoon and not during the seeding matches. If a team is confident they will be picked for elimination matches (good reputation or good design for elimination matches) they will care less about seeding standings. When different gameplay styles reward different behaviors, and only one of the gameplays styles have an outcome that "really matters," then standings within the other may become a little more randomized. This is rough on teams paired with the teams who only care about elimination matches, for similar but more subtle variants of the same situations which caused the rules to be changed to permit super-alliances. I am psyched to see soccer balls, especially over playground balls. Have fun with these: they are rather warp resistant, but once they do warp they get wonky fast. Also, a big thank-you for using such a commonly available resource. Last year teams had to drive far and wide to collect enough game pieces. Overall, I think this is one of the best game designs I have seen in years. |
Re: New Game Criticism
As a Brit, I am loving this new game. However, I have some worries about it. Just like football (soccer), it's probably going to be defensive and low-scoring.
However, I disagree with the criticism of the autonomous period because I feel it makes it easier for the spectators and it's given extra weight as if you can score in autonomous mode, it is highly likely that that goal will have a big effect on who wins the match. Although they are brining the bad side of football with the yellow cards for trivial and pedantic mistakes, but it might improve safety I guess. |
Re: New Game Criticism
Quote:
|
Re: New Game Criticism
I really like the game, but...
There should be an autonomous bonus of 2-3 points per goal, 5 points if you hang yourself! I do think that what some teams will do in autonomous is get a ball, lock on to the target, and kick the ball across the field. In the past, 10 point penalties could make or break a match often, but because I don't scores being much higher than 15 points (they'll probably be closer to 10), penalties can really hurt. Teams are going to have to be careful, maybe too careful, with following the rules. I didn't read the rules, but if it is true that touching a ball while going over the bump is illegal, what may happen is a robot is gonna push the ball over first and while it's going over the bump, another robot may steal the ball. I really like how hard it is to keep the ball in your possession. I also think drive trains will be much more important this year - YAY! Last year, sticking with basic tank drive was actually pretty good. MARS thinks crab drive will be good for quick blocking. What I think is the best is the driver station. Our drive team is really excited this year, especially with the camera!!! Overall - great game! |
Re: New Game Criticism
Quote:
<G09>: Quote:
As others have pointed out, this kind of is the autonomous bonus: the ability to score that goal unimpeded. |
Re: New Game Criticism
Quote:
|
Re: New Game Criticism
Quote:
But no really, I think this will be a good game. I would have liked it more if robots could actually collect the balls rather than just herd and if there were like 50 balls on the field at a time. |
Re: Lots to like
All I was thinking of yesterday was the intensity of Aim high as well, this is going to be intense for the players, the fans in the stands and us media people on the ground and being soccer related it may draw more media and public fan attention this year as well. I can't wait! It's going to make great visuals and sound for us camera people.
mark Quote:
|
Re: New Game Criticism
Quote:
|
Re: New Game Criticism
Quote:
My opinion on this is DEFINITELY influenced by the "Load Zone Penalty of Doom"! :) |
Re: New Game Criticism
Disclaimer: I'm only halfway through reading the rules. /Disclaimer
This game is intriguing. I love the fact that it will be easy to watch and entertaining to boot. Here's how I see it going down: Robots that will be able to push others around the field will rule the game. The best scoring mechanism in the game won't help if your robot can't even change zones without being slammed around. I see the winning robots being low, able to go under the bridge, with a powerful kicker on the front. The robot will be simple, easy to operate, and able to right itself should it tip. I think we'll be seeing many a Kit-Bot get stuck on the ramp. The question is whether or not the power players will bother to get them unstuck. |
Re: New Game Criticism
Overall seems like an exciting game this year. Will actually take strategy among the teams. My one concern is that, with two small goals for each end, it seems like you could have two defenders literally park in front of the goals. I know this would be an idiotic strategy during seedings given the seeding point distribution rules, but when it comes down to elimination, what prevents that sort of thing? Am I missing something?
|
Re: New Game Criticism
Quote:
|
Re: New Game Criticism
Quote:
Defending ROBOT Restriction - Only one opposing ALLIANCE ROBOT is allowed in the opponent’s ZONE. A ROBOT is considered in this ZONE if any part of the ROBOT is in contact with the ZONE's green carpet. Violation: PENALTY; plus a RED CARD if effort to remedy is not immediate. |
Re: New Game Criticism
Overall I don't really like this game. It is growing on my as I put more thought into it but, I'm just not a fan.
Likes: 1) Bumps, they're pretty awesome seeing as we've had flat fields for the last 2 years. 2) Multiple Scoring Opportunities, it's nice to finally have another game where there's more than one major scoring method. 3) Soccer Balls, and their availability. Anyone, Anywhere, on the Planet can find a Size Five Soccer Ball. Dislikes: 1) Restrictive Size Rules, I don't like how restrictive the size rules are this year. I'd really like to see a robot allowed to expand out to it's maximum size at anytime during the game. 2) Steepness of the Bumps, I really foresee at least one match where all 6 machines have tipped by the 60 second mark. (I both Like and Dislike the Bumps) 3) Restrictive Ball interaction rules, FIRST is basically telling us that we HAVE to "Kick" the ball. 4) Lack of Autonomous Bonus, I think this may discourage autonomous play. That's my two cents for now. |
Re: New Game Criticism
Guys, you can't really bash the game yet. The rules are still changing (as they always have within the first week), you haven't seen it played, and you haven't had too much time to digest it.
|
Re: New Game Criticism
Quote:
Spoiler for Long List of Event Rankings:
It certainly was interesting to see teams that performed poorly (ie, no wins) in the top 8. Worries me a little. Now, disclaimers. This data is only as accurate as the FRCFMS Twitter feed. We are comparing apples and oranges, last years game played different than this game will likely play and was (I am assuming) higher scoring. The only thing this data shows is that it is a MAJOR change. |
Re: New Game Criticism
Likes
Easy to explain without having to show people the animation Teams don't all use the same exact wheels the field isn't flat Ranking can't be relied upon as much during alliance suggestions robots look strange (yes, this is a good thing) requires different ways of thinking to succeed Dislikes scoring in auto doesn't give extra points The struggle to maintain as small a lead as possible could be stressful not enough expansion ( I miss robots like swampthing from 2003, 71 from 2002, any robot that didn't start with its wheels on the ground basically) |
Re: New Game Criticism
Quote:
|
Re: New Game Criticism
Not sure about the new ranking system.
Look at section 9.3.4 and 9.3.5 of the manual and consider the following match Winning alliance scores 3 points and is penalized 2 points Losing alliance scores 0 points Final results will be WINNING ALLIANCE Seed points 1 Coopertition pts 0 Total 1 LOSING ALLIANCE Seed points 3 Coop points 0 Total 3 So, the losing team scoring zero points gets more points than the winning alliance? That doesn't seem right. Or am I missing something? |
Re: New Game Criticism
My biggest complaint this year isn't the game itself, it's the rules. With the way the size and ball interaction rules are written, many simple, elegant solutions are taken of the picture, leaving only the difficult and complex solutions. This in and of itself runs contrary to the basic idea of engineering, KISS. (Keep it Simple and Stupid). FIRST seems to have undermined their own goals a little bit here.
|
Re: New Game Criticism
Quote:
Winner: 1 seed, 2 Coop, 3 total Loser: 3 seed, 0 coop, 3 total. All you have to do is make sure that there is not a shutout due to scoring capability, and you come out at least even, if not ahead. |
Re: New Game Criticism
My team has had a huge discussion about the seeding scoring, and we think it works like this:
First note: Losing alliance gets NO coopertition bonus. Alliance A (the winning alliance) gets their raw score minus any penalties plus double alliance B's raw score. A_final = A_raw - A_penalties + 2*B_raw Alliance B gets alliance A's raw score. B_final = A_raw With this method, the winning alliance always gets more points (logical), yet close games and not blowing out opponents are encouraged. To the rest of the game: Likes: Strategy, easier to understand, many kinds of bots, importance of different scoring types Dislike: The seeding system! And the complicated nature of a lot of the rules (2 second time limits, same position relative to the robot, etc); they will be hard to keep track of mid-game. |
Re: New Game Criticism
I am more optimistic about this game than I have been about any FIRST game at this point with the possible exception of 2006. This game has flying balls, hanging robots, and non-flat surfaces - all things that add to the "wow" factor. At kickoff, the speakers put it best - football is so popular not because of the 11 men on the field, but because of the 60,000+ people who will pay good money to watch the game. For FRC to experience similar success, you need games that outsiders will find fun to watch. Mission accomplished, IMHO.
To those complaining about seeding points and overall robot restrictions: On the former point, I'd say wait and see. I don't think things will be as dismal as you may seem to think. On the latter point, we are essentially playing soccer. One of the key rules of soccer is that you can't manipulate the ball with your hands (e.g. above the bumper zone), and that there is no way to completely possess a ball. Otherwise, the game turns into rugby or football - a big scrumfest. Personally, I had enough scrumming last year. |
Re: New Game Criticism
Personally, my oppinion on the game is a little indifferent. This is because it fits my team perfectly in that the game has various distinct tasks which can be accomplished with different subsystems that do not interact with each other (we have a very large team, so a game like that is best). I dislike how we still have restricted expansion rules and how we have to stay low to the ground when manupulating the ball.
I ABSOLUTELY HATE THE SEEDING SYSTEM THOUGH!!!!!!!!!!! |
Re: New Game Criticism
Likes:
-The 45 degree bump + the 1/2" from the carpet to the bump- I really want to see how many teams choose between going under the tower v over the bump. - Easy to tell who is winning the game -Less human player scoring -Higher chance of scoring during auton (especially without interference. Dislikes: -The idea of hanging on the tower -The feeling that a lot of robots have a higher chance of breaking from other robots "kicking" the ball or falling off of the tower and the safety of it all. |
Re: New Game Criticism
This is going to sound a little stupid, but another complaint of mine is that it is going to be extremely hard to make a good looking robot. You can't match the bumpers with the rest of your robot, and the fact that the bumpers are 10-16" off of the ground. Not to mention the whole hight thing.
Any thoughts on how to make a nice looking robot? |
Re: New Game Criticism
Quote:
|
Re: New Game Criticism
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: New Game Criticism
Quote:
|
Re: New Game Criticism
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: New Game Criticism
Quote:
|
Re: New Game Criticism
Quote:
|
Re: New Game Criticism
Quote:
|
Re: New Game Criticism
I think the overall game is a great game. I love the fact that the GDC put an emphasis on simplicity in the robots. I'm a 4x4 truck guy, and the bumps in the field are exciting to me. I'm looking forward to those that overcome the center of gravity question that comes with creating a high-profile vehicle. It almost seems that drivetrains will be a key part of this years robot. Good luck to all!
|
Re: New Game Criticism
I must say, I rather like the way the game will go as teams with simpler robots may very well be better off than those with more complicated robots only from the strategic concepts of the game. I also think it may pull out some of the most innovative ways to sidestep some of the obstacles. I'm not so fond of some of the coopertition rules (what happened to being able to being understood by humans?) but it does throw in a bit more strategy to it.
Oh, and as a fan of pinball, I rather like the rails as the way to reintroduce the balls to the field. :) |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 14:22. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi