Quote:
Originally Posted by Moreau
Like others have said, the 2008 game was great for observers since the game pieces were very large, and it was very clear when points were scored (on the other hand, penalties could be very finicky and difficult for the audience to see), so the audience really had something to watch. FRC is foremost a robotics competition, so the design challenge of the game should come first, but the quality of the game as a game is also important. If Dean's goal is to increase public interest in FRC, his objective should not have been to make the game more esoteric and less interesting. There aren't going to be any surprises (unless someone can actually spot that supercell going into a trailer, and I guarantee that one hail-mary throw will decide 70% of matches if it gets in), and the winners will be determined after a game through bean counting. Robots will lurch across the field slowly, turn slowly, jackknife slightly more quickly, impact each other, fail to score on each other, and slowly escape back to the carpet to run around collecting balls quickly.
|
I would not claim that robots will lurch slowly across the field, from what I have seen a good driver can move on this stuff without any fancy programming or drive trains. It is not easy, and they will be whipping around a lot, but it is doable. And I have said it time and time again, a good robot can be dominated by a mediocre robot w/ a great driver. Look at 1114, technically their robot was not as complex or fancy as some robots, I would put it as a good robot (no offense meant of course) but I would say that their drivers are the best in the business. THAT is why they won. Drivers will determine if robot's are good, not the machines themselves.
Hail Mary throws are generally just that, high risk, high reward attempts. A team who does a Hail Mary pass in the last play of the Super Bowl because they are down by 5 points does it because they know they will lose. I think a piece like that keeps things exciting. Look back to 2004, hanging and the 2x balls were able to swing whole matches in the last second. I recall RUSH losing two events because our partner's hanging mechanism failed in the last 5 seconds of our matches. It made us constantly have to be on our feet instead of being able to get so far ahead that we could just stop caring.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pfreivald
LOL. I've founded two FIRST teams, and every time students ask me about a rule I say "to make it hard!"
All of the restrictions fall into one of three categories:
1. Safety (protruding edges, proper shielding, etc.)
2. Fairness ($$ limit, powering, usage of parts, etc.)
3. Challenge (size, weight, wheels, etc.)
I'm surprised to see so many FIRSTers complaining about the challenge aspect of it.
I think one *could* make a legitimate complaint about the human player aspect, but honestly, I think a well-automated turret will be a better scorer than the humans. You're looking at a 10" thick erratically-moving donut into which you're throwing 9" balls -- doable, but it's going to be harder than people give it credit for.
Patrick
|
I personally enjoy making it so there is a human aspect to scoring. Look back to the last game where human players had a reasonable chance of scoring, 2006. Did they detract from the robots? Not at all, but they did make it more interesting.
Also, on your list, where does <G14> come in? That is the ONLY issue I still have with the game. Other than that I think it will be a lot of fun to watch and to play.