Quote:
Originally Posted by Loose Screw
* Without robot-robot interaction, games were rather stale. If a teams could consistantly put out 2-42pt stacks, there wasn't any difference in how they did it.
* There are no jukes. No 360 no-scopes. There is very little outplay.
* There were little-to-no upsets. In Michigan, 18/19 of the events the #1 alliance won, Including MSC. I still remember MSC 2011 when the #1 alliance lost to the #8 alliance from strategy alone. The #1 robot didn't break, no big penalties, just strategy. You'll never have such an upset like that without defense.
|
It is interesting to note that a lot of your cons also contribute to the game this year being incredibly consistent. While consistently stale I wouldn't say that defense is the only way a game can be considered exciting. The tension when a stack almost falls over is anything but stale to me. So while this years game is definitely not as skill heavy as some previous games. A major takeaway from this year is that utilizing safety zones appropriately is important to good game design.
Last years game was very simple in regards to what your robot could be doing to effectively utilize time on the field. You could be manipulating a game piece, you could be playing defense. So the trade offs were more resources dedicated to the drive base vs super structure (in my opinion it was pretty stale design wise).
When you design a robot this year with so many different needs to effectively manipulate game pieces. In order to get the maximum amount of points you need to pull resources from all over the place. So the paths you can take when designing a robot are far more complex and it reflects completely in the diversity in robot types due to the really good resource distribution.
So while the game play does seem stale to me the overall diversity in robot design makes up for it.
Technically you can't win a match just by wining the RC race because they are worth no points at all.
The mindset I had with this years game compared to last years game I just cannot compare. Last year my brain worked in cycles and in the moment. Keep an eye open for paths help manage defense coordinate where robots go on the field.
This year I got to sit down with the scouting information look through capabilities and say "this is my read on the opposing alliance they are going to go for points in this fashion our best bet is to adapt to this role and play in this way". With no defense and no major interference from the other side we got to lay out plans and execute them to our fullest ability. We got to utilize the mechanisms on our robot and see that all of our hard work was worth it.
Last years pinning mechanics and robot to robot interaction while exciting was the most demoralizing things to watch for me. I remember a match where our team broadsided a robot and shoved em halfway across the field it was intense and exciting to watch. After we dropped the pressure and moved away from the robot to help scoring I noticed that robot wasn't able to move. The robot we pushed used tread and we managed to wreck the tread. Yeah it was exciting to watch but when I walked by the pit and saw how the team felt, I felt pretty bad. We had 6 weeks to design a robot to play a game and utilize the games rules to design an incredible machine. Yet a decent amount of matches threw the rule book out the window in favor of just playing "defense."
Defense is just a mixed bag for me, and I'm not about to blame the GDC for it because having just the right amount of defense in a game is hard to pull off.
/rant