View Single Post
  #15   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-01-2017, 10:44
Jon Stratis's Avatar
Jon Stratis Jon Stratis is offline
Mentor, LRI, MN RPC
FRC #2177 (The Robettes)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,839
Jon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Why I like the last 2 games--dual challenge levels

Quote:
Originally Posted by Siri View Post
I'm interested in what game mechanic is making gears so much of a better fit for folk on this score than other years' low goals (herein meaning a goal within robot height whose game pieces can be received at a higher altitude than they are scored).

I'd argue that that gear pegging could well end up significantly more difficult even than low goaling frisbees in 2013. I saw more than one box on wheels just consistently collect 4 frisbees in a static tray, run across the field, and ram into the low goal to send them tumbling. A consistent static loader may be around the same level of difficulty both years, but the goal alignment (including the obstructed vision) looks far more difficult at least viewing it from build season. And certainly running two slanted hooks into the bottom rung of the pyramid is far easier than rope climbing. Low goaling in 2014, for its part, was far easier than either 2013 or now. In fact, I'd argue that 2014, between the chair assists and the low goaling and the Aerial Assault defense--and the number of points they were all worth--was the most versatile, valuable, and strategically interesting for Dozer bots in recent years with 2016 also being similar. The actual 2017 low goal (for fuel) is among the more difficult low goals for good throughput that we've had recently. 2015's was less exciting (in oh so many ways), but you could indeed push bunches of single or double totes onto platforms and people did this.

I do agree that gears have a certain je ne sais quoi, but I don't think it's about challenge levels or strategic complexity. We've long had both of those if you knew where to look (and you don't look in Lunacy :P). My current conjecture is that we simply like the balance between the two tasks better in terms of match effects and design prioritization. This, for instance, is something 2013 arguably really struggled with in the point/complexity difference between 10, 20, and 30 point climbs. This year teams that might otherwise say "but we have to shoot high to be worth it" are saying "yay, passive gear mechanism" simply because of the point potential they're anticipating.
Some of the differences I see:
2013 - You had a fixed number of frisbees that could be scored, and if you had a good high goal bot or two on the alliance, you didn't want to waste them on a low goal bot. In that way, your low goal bot could get squeezed out from scoring.

2014 - This is still my favorite game. It was accessible to everyone pretty easily, and required alliances to utilize all of their members in order to score the most points.

Until we see the game play out at events, we won't really know how good it is. But gears do appear to be high enough in quantity that you'll need everyone involved to get them all scored, and the robot mechanism can be simple enough to implement that everyone should be able to build one for it. After that, it just comes down to driving ability in order to line up to score. Even if gears end up scoring quicker than anticipated, your high performing bots will have other things they can do (like shooting fuel) to allow others to score points with gears and keep the alliance balanced and everyone contributing to scoring points.

Defense can be critical to a good alliance in most games. But it's not really all that fun or exciting to always play defense. Unless you're exceptional, you often get overlooked in alliance selection because everyone is looking to maximize their points scored.

I envision this game mostly consisting of teams trying to score points. Defense will happen mostly opportunistically, although it may be tried when there is a large imbalance in the scoring potential between the alliances. And frankly, I like that... I want to see team's robots be able to do what they were designed for, and not stuck in a corner unable to reach the goals.
__________________
2007 - Present: Mentor, 2177 The Robettes
LRI: North Star 2012-2016; Lake Superior 2013-2014; MN State Tournament 2013-2014, 2016; Galileo 2016; Iowa 2017
2015: North Star Regional Volunteer of the Year
2016: Lake Superior WFFA
Reply With Quote