[roboticsgoof95]

Originally Posted by EricH

You're confusing AUDIENCE simplicity with PARTICIPANT simplicity.

The BEST games are ones that are simple for the audience to understand (3-on-3 game of soccer, hang at the end, goals come back to the middle) but the participants can wow everyone with the "cool/awesome factor" (469, 51, 125 as they redirected--but especially 469). The main way to confuse the audience was the 6v0 that the ranking system encouraged a bit.

Or, to take another example, I'll go to 2002. The game was simple: move three goals, filled as full of soccer balls as possible, into a particular zone of the field (of the 5 zones), then put some part of your robot into a particular non-adjacent zone. There are two legends from that year: FRC71, who raced out to the goals, grabbed all three, and crawled into the proper zone using filecards, and FRC60, who grabbed two goals, got into the zone, lifted them up (you've got to understand, these goals are 30# heavier than even today's robots are while on the field, which have a good 20# on the robots back then), and spun them in a circle whenever someone tried to push a goal.

It's games like that that we need: 30 seconds to explain the basics to some random person off the street, 6 weeks+ championship to show just how innovatively you think to everybody, participant or spectator.

How hard was it to explain the last games such as logomotion? because i sure didnt have a hard time explaining it... i mean even when they showed it on the news paul didnt have a hard time explaining it to the public...