[Caleb Sykes]

Originally Posted by brandon.cottrell

Well think about games like Ultimate Ascent, the whole "pyramid climbing" goal.

Sure, it wasn't worth very many points, but to have a robot that actually did that was eye candy for spectators. Everyone I talk to about Ultimate Ascent outside of FIRST cites the Pyramid as the most amazing thing about the game, because of the complex mechanisms robots had to do them. Like, this and this.

I don't understand how those examples are that much more amazing than this and this.

With this game, all the robots really had to be successful was have a consistent way to hold and release the ball. You didn't even really need to launch it, and there were a lot of cases where launching it would've just created more problems than simply holding the ball and then letting goal of it.

This statement (with small variations) could probably be said for any game. For example: "[With Ultimate Ascent], all the robots really needed to be successful was to have a consistent way to hold and release [discs into the low goal]. You don't even really need to launch it, and there were a lot of cases where launching it would've just created more problems than simply holding the [discs] and then letting go of [them]."

What this lead to is many "cookie-cutter" robots and strategies, which is the main reason people don't like games like Lunacy. Even though nobody is really "copying" anyone, it's hard to bring a new innovating idea that will actually work and be consistent.

It seems that you are more commenting on unique designs here, which is a very different issue than a game that did not provide a difficult engineering challenge.