[BBray_T1296]

As others have pointed out, the endgame definitely depends on the full game itself.

-For Aerial Assist, there was no need for the end game. The pressure of last second large points was enough.
-For UA, yeah the endgame was needed. With so many pieces and a lack of real strategy (more cycles!), there needed to be some kind of quick decision on the part of the players as to finish that last cycle, or to go for the 10 point hang. However, I feel that the 10 point hangs were too easy. It was way to simple for a robot to just ram the pyramid at the last second and get 10 points.
-For Rebound Rumble, the bridge balancing hit the nail on the proverbial head. They were worth big points, but if you got 1 less robot than the other team, it was not the end of the world if you could score fast enough earlier. There was tons of excitement and it was really simple to grasp that balancing was the objective, and more robots=more points. I think RR had the best endgame of the 5 years I have been a part of FRC
-For Logomotion, despite the overpowered-ness of the point values, this was my favorite endgame to date. The concept was simple, although the rules were not restrictive enough. There was a significant challenge to teams and played a large part in the success of the best teams.
-For Breakaway, the end game was scored perfectly. There was an unpredictably (to us, apparently not the GDC) low number of balls scored every game, and the 2 point hang was just right to make robots design something tough but could really pay off as 2 points could sway the match very often. The 3 point double hang was never done (to my knowledge) but I believe it was due to the incapability of teams to design with other teams systems in mind.


I think the ideal endgame is one where you must design a system hardly related to the main challenge, with the included diversion of weight from the main manipulator. A task that is rewarding to both see from a spectator point of view, and from the win/loss point of view. The point value and nature of the challenge/risk must be set up carefully, so as to make the endgame worth attempting, but not making it impossible to defeat, to discourage robots solely dedicated to the endgame, but also discourage robots without endgame mechanisms. The task must be tough from an engineering standpoint, such that it is advantageous to have a portion of your team entirely dedicated to just the endgame device, but again not so tough to require too much weight or complexity, so as to discourage doing it.
That being said, if the endgame is sufficiently spectacular (Read: RR) simplicity is OK.

just my $0.03