[Barry Bonzack]

my responses in blue

1. What did you think of this year's game - what did you like about it and what did you not like about it?
This has been my second favorite game, next to Hot Shot. Downfall of both games is there is one scoring element that completely overpowers all other strategies, often making the end game the only thing that matters, and the other 2 minutes seem like wasted time.


2. What did you think about other components of FTC that's not related to the game? I love the FTC program. I love that teams can host competitions in their own gym, which provides a "home game" feel that can not be accomplished in FRC without a districts system.


3. What would you have done differently, what would you keep for future seasons? Autonomous mode scoring. If I were designing a game, I would not give the referees any major decisions they have to make after autonomous mode ends. FRC game Rebound Rumble did an excellent job of keeping the game fast paced, and the transition between Hybrid to Teleop quick, and I would model future FTC games to do the same.

Originally Posted by TRWSHSHLX

Maybe the GDC didn't anticipate the lifts being that tall as at the end, nothing else really mattered but lifting the crates. Is it possible for them to make a revision during midseason to balance the game out a bit more? I know it will upset a lot of teams but at least give the other teams a chance...

Ha, you ask "is it possible..." is there anything that isn't possible? They are the GDC, they can walk on water. The FRC GDC stated in their 2010 rules that they reserved the right to change the rules at any point, and of course send weekly rule updates. But do we really want them drastically changing the scoring after the robots are complete and the competition is underway? All teams started with the same rules. Those that found the best strategies to maximize points planned their entire build season around those strategies. Those teams that thought in early fall "what if we built a 12 foot lift" took serious design risks, and were rewarded for their efforts if they were able to pull it off.

Lesson learned for the GDC: if you ever give students the possibility for an unlimited scoring potential, then expect the entire game to be about the teams that can do that one element the very best, because they will accomplish it beyond your wildest dreams.

Lesson learned 2: If you give students unlimited scoring potential, brainstorm if that could unleash unintended safety hazards.

I think it is obvious the GDC did not anticipate lifts like we saw in St. Louis.
If they had, I doubt the kickoff video would have spent so much time focusing on stacking crates, and the magnet ball would have been worth more than 25 points.

Originally Posted by TRWSHSHLX

Samantha was improved, thank you. Yet there are instances that it fails, and I'm not talking about rookies, but veterans at world championship elimination rounds.

I do not know exactly what the FTC crew does to fix these problems, and when they try to explain it to me it goes right over my head because i'm not an engineer. What I can promise you is that they are also frustrated, and do work tirelessly to fix them.

I was talking with <namedrop not mentioned> during the finals match you are referring to. With disappointment he stated something along the lines that they have been working tirelessly to get these issues resolved, and he knows that everyone gets upset when robots lose connection. However, there are so many components that make a robot go, and so many systems that all must work together, that it is nearly impossible to create a perfect competition where robots do not lose connection with the resources they have available. These words echoed in my head the day after during the finals of FRC.

This isn't NASA. If we want to have inexpensive kits, then we can't expect all robots to work 100% of the time.