Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Bendicksen
My top components of a great game: - The ability for teams to build to their skill level. World class teams should be able to build really complex and multi-functional robots, while the less experienced teams or those with less resources can still produce something functional and satisfying.
- Spectator-friendliness. (Is that a word? It is now.) If we're going to "Make it Loud," someone who hasn't read the rule book should be able to gain a functional knowledge of the game by watching a match or two.
- A reasonably short rule book. At a certain point, the game is just too hard to understand, and teams will start incurring penalties that they barely knew existed (*cough* Aerial Assist *cough*).
- Some level of coopertition, whether it's inter- or intra-alliance. Six robots doing the same thing in parallel is a lot less interesting than six robots doing the same thing in series. One thing that I loved about Aerial Assist was that it was fully possible, even likely, for an alliance of three decent robots to take down an alliance with one world-famous bot.
I'm interested to see what everyone else has to say! |
This year's game plus the successes of the last 3 years made me think more about how FRC's GDC should approach these games each year. I like the list above. I'm adding some more fundamental principles that I think FRC should always keep in mind:
1) The goal of FRC is to create a sporting event environment that generates excitement for participants and spectators. This means that spectators must be able to follow the game and that there are dramatic moments for them to cheer during the event (not just a "tennis clap" at the end). Participants also should feel the drama. The bottom line is that popularity of the game is actually important if FIRST wants to recruit students to this STEM program.
- Sporting events (vs. games) require dynamic motion and interplay between competitors and teammates. Sporting events are not static and there should be a continuous flow when the competition is actually going. There many sports where there are short bursts with resets (think football or baseball) but those reset periods have anticipation for the next burst.
- Any game design should have a strong dynamic element with team interaction in some form. One can be favored over the other but balance is best. Looking across human sports, all involve either hurling an object in some manner (hit, throw, toss etc), a race, or qualitative judging of moving the body in a difficult way. FIRST doesn't have the resources for the third type, so it should focus on choosing between one of the first two.
- It can be difficult for spectators to follow more than one game element at a time. Either playing with a single element, either one per team or one for the match, or limiting scoring to one robot at a time could help for following the event. As good as ultimate ascent was, the barrage of discs could be hard to follow especially if the real time scoring wasn't accurate. Last year was much easier to follow.
2) Another goal of FRC is to expand the reach of STEM-based education across communities. One potentially high-yield channel is having the most experienced and competent teams assisting the less-experienced teams. The best way to do this is have games that require interaction among alliance mates. Last year's game ended up being a good example of how all 3 robots had to be involved. If teams know that games will require all 3 robots the best teams will have an incentive to help others. (Sorry but as an economist relying solely on charity to achieve community goals is a really, really bad idea. I can point you to the article by Hal Varian, CIO for Google, that makes this case.)
- FRC has a truly unique overall game structure (that I would like to see in a human sport as well). Qualification matches randomly rotate 3 team alliances in two-alliance matches. This means that teams must rely on other teams over which they have no choice and little control. The GDC should always be thinking of how the game promotes positive interaction among alliance mates both during AND prior to any given match. Last year we helped build 2 intakes for other teams at the competition. It was beneficial to all of us. The GDC should think about promoting this element.
Coopertition is a nice concept but if it's only in force during qualifications it can lead to weird incentives and can be ignored by teams that are pretty sure of being selected by an alliance no matter what. Teams have sabotaged coop attempts to further their own goals. To truly promote interteam coopertition, interteam play has to be continued into the elimination rounds like last year.
The multi-task games with auto and end stages are interesting but not necessary elements. If there is an end stage it should be important enough to sway the game. This can be a way of allowing single focus teams as more important players into the game.