Thread: 2013 Game?
View Single Post
  #130   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 08-05-2012, 16:06
ZipTie3182's Avatar
ZipTie3182 ZipTie3182 is offline
Registered User
AKA: Anna Sklenar
FRC #3182 (Athena's Warriors)
Team Role: Mechanical
 
Join Date: May 2010
Rookie Year: 2010
Location: West Hartford, CT
Posts: 94
ZipTie3182 is a jewel in the roughZipTie3182 is a jewel in the roughZipTie3182 is a jewel in the roughZipTie3182 is a jewel in the rough
Re: 2013 Game?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nemo View Post
This post got me thinking about having two games played in every match. If each game was worth 2 QP, that could force interesting design decisions and game strategy decisions. For it to work, both games would need to require a relevant investment, both in terms of match time and robot capabilities.

Or the endgame could simply be worth 2 QP instead of 2 CP or xyz points. (forget about minibots - that would be awful with QP's) What if the 2009 Lunacy endgame awarded QP? If a supercell was worth 1 QP instead of 15 points, that might have been pretty interesting. That forces you to decide if it's worth the effort of doing the empty cell setup routine or if you need to focus all of your time on winning the match.

Other thoughts: what if the highest stack was worth a separate 2 QP in 2003? What if scoring the most balls was worth a separate 2 QP in 2002? That would have changed those games a lot.
I think it's an interesting concept to have the "two games" in every match. I think this is what makes a game interesting since it causes design trade offs. It didn't as much as it could this year but it years like 2010 where you had the tunnel and the hanging bar. Most teams did not both hang and go under the tunnel. Or like in 2004 where they was a million ways to score.

I like this because it causes teams to come up with different designs unlike this year where all robots that scored pretty much looked the same. Design trade offs also make it more difficult for powerhouses to really do it all, or at least need their alliance partners a little more.

I think it's really important that Rookies be able to find their niche in a game, as well as allow for multiple veteran strategies. It's no fun if all robots do the same thing because then teams that don't have as much experiences (or resources) have a really hard time building a competitive robot.

And I know I'll probably get a lot of backlash for saying this, but I LIKED the Co-op points this year. It allowed my team to advance a little father than we would have otherwise, which definitely induced A LOT of inspiration afterwards. I've never seen many of the girls on my team so euphoric about engineering or robotics. It was a great thing for my team, and Co-op really achieved what FIRST meant it to, even if some very skilled robots got displaced from winning.

-Anna
Reply With Quote