[DougHogg]

Originally posted by Vincent Chan
Doug--

I think a sport with a ball would be rather boring to watch; if you'd like that, you could go play 'bot soccer.

You may be right. I have never seen 'bot soccer, and the last thing I want is to make the FIRST Robotics Competition boring to watch. I want it to be really exciting. I will check out 'bot soccer when I get a chance so that I have a better idea of what you are saying.

Basically I have been trying to get a handle on a problem that has been discussed by Dean at the kickoffs and in threads on this board from way back: how to make the game suitable for a TV audience. (Some of those threads pre-date me on this board; I ran into one when doing a search.) Sure I don't have the whole solution yet, but whenever I turn on the TV, there is always a ball zooming around with the camera following it, and apparently, people watch and there is lots of money for the franchises, etc. Maybe, just maybe, we could take a lesson from them and figure out a way to make a game with one ball, that is very exciting. I am far from claiming a complete solution, just an observation that all the really popular team sports on TV seem to involve one ball, sometimes a very small one as in baseball. The video person knows which way to point his camera. The audience knows where to look. It's simple in that regard. The complexity and interest is built on a simplicity. Maybe we could do that too.

Why isn't basketball boring? What is it about soccer and football that draws millions of people? Can we isolate those elements and imbed them in a robot competition? They are doing something right, as far as getting and keeping people's attention. Maybe part of it is the passing of the ball from player to player. It's like the old shell game, "Where is it now?" Then of course we have tackling in football, home runs in baseball, and the slam dunk in basketball. Maybe we could come up with a robotics version and combine it all into one game.

Originally posted by Vincent Chan

While I agree that FIRST's game is rather confusing as far as scoring this year, I certainly think that it is a blast to watch. Yes, it is true that you cannot keep track of all the robots at any given moment, but focusing on the robots that are doing the most action-oriented activities gives plenty for people to watch.

The scoring is definitely part of the problem. Tonight, my son who is an engineer on our team, and I were watching a SOAP108 video of Semi Final 2 of the MidWest Regional. The Baxter Bomb Squad Team 16 cleared the stack at their opponents end which made sense, but then they proceeded to clear all the bins from their own side.We were confused. Finally I noticed that we had downloaded the 2nd match of the semi-finals rather than the 1st as intended. Then we could figure out what was happening, but I am darn sure a non-competing audience would have had trouble with it. I think that we have to learn to see the games through the eyes of people who aren't competing. Sure we get a big kick out of it, because we are deep into it.

Originally posted by Vincent Chan
A game with simpler scoring rules would make for a much more viewer-friendly competition. Also, to make the game more audience-friendly, the kickoff animation or something akin to it could be shown to those watching the competition, and the details could be left for the announcer to cover as they arise during matches.
[/b]

I agree. Both of those things are helpful. However, it seems like FIRST has been struggling with simpler scoring for years, and has never arrived at a solution that works for audiences.

Originally posted by Vincent Chan
Consider football: scoring and rules are not clear (just survey a bunch of girls in your classes), yet if it holds someone's attention for just a quarter or two, they begin to understand the rules. Same idea here. As matches go on, more and more details are explained to the audience by the announcer. The basics, however, should be explained prior to the first match to clarify the game, as it changes year to year.
[/b]

Yes but in football the focus is on one thing: the ball, and even though the rules are complex, the premise is simple, "Move the ball to the other teams end." You can see that the players are trying to do that, even if no one has explained it to you. On a TV screen, the camera follows the ball threw the air or it follows the guy running with it, and always in the same direction.

Originally posted by Vincent Chan
As far as descoring and collusions, I agree with JAlpert. The concept of descoring and on-field collusions is a valid strategy and completely fair; HOWEVER, I find off-field collusions made prior to the match not in the spirit of FIRST. [/b]

I agree, given this year's rules. I just want to get them changed, so when people are watching they don't see odd ball things, like one team making a stack for their opponents. That might not seem to strange to us--we've been living and breathing the game for months, and most of us were involved in a somewhat similar game last year, but I am sure it is to most non-competitors.

On the subject of off-field collusions, Dean likes to bring up that a society gets what it "celebrates". Well we got "off-field" collusion this year because the game "celebrated" it (ie rewarded it) through the rules. Solution: let's not go there in future. Let's just not bother lighting that particular brush fire and then spending weeks discussing how to get rid of it. Just change the scoring, so that collusion wouldn't be helpful to a team. Perhaps a team's qualifying points should be based on the gap in the score. Then you could increase the gap by knocking down the other team's stack or by building one of your own: defense and offense both reward the team. And the losing team would be trying to narrow the gap. How would it work exactly? I don't know, but I think it is worth discussing, so thanks for your viewpoints on the matter.