The New Endgame

[Zylviij]

Will the endgame return for the 2015 season? It seems as if FIRST wishes to create a more sport-like game that focuses on teamwork, driver skill, action, and exciting matches. For spectators this year was especially interesting because even if one didn't know all of the rules they could equally understand the gravity of each play which was made.

The addition of an endgame next year would get rid of buzzer-beaters and seemingly counteract what the FIRST game-makers new vision. Will they (should they) add an endgame?

[thatprogrammer]

I think a more balanced end-game would work! Something like a special ball to get extra points in the last 30 seconds would be wonderful.

[Sparkyshires]

So I'm going to say this as a personal opinion of a two year spectator and a now driver with one year of experience - I think an end-game adds more flavor to the robots and game, but no end-game adds more to the spectator-sport part of FRC that FIRST is really trying to push.

However, I do think it should come back. You still get buzzer beaters with the end-games, albeit not as exciting, but they're still there. So long as they don't repeat logomotion and have it impossible to understand whats going on unless your a dedicated FRC-er, I think an end-game will appease the masses without disrupting the spectator aspect too much.

[Harman341]

Originally Posted by thatprogrammer

I think a more balanced end-game would work! Something like a special ball to get extra points in the last 30 seconds would be wonderful.

I'm not a fan of the special game piece end game such as 2009's super cell. I think it makes the game more confusing, and it doesn't add the challenge of the end game. Deciding when to change to endgame strategy, adding an extra function, and giving teams another outlet to come up with crazy designs is all the fun. I really liked the mini-bots, and I feel like a race is really easy to understand if you're someone new to FIRST. I think FIRST will add an end game next year, but I hope they leave team work to the middle of the match and allow individual robots to show off to spectators in the end game.

- I showed my friend (non-firster) the video of 254's climb last year and his jaw dropped

[Dantvman27]

After reflecting upon this weeks matches, I am officially in favor of the end game being retired. I came to this conclusion for several reasons.

I personally have never enjoyed watching the finish of a tight match than this year. I realized that the end game split the match really into two different challenges and now seeing a game with no separate challenge, I realize how much the end game takes away from the flow of a good match.

One of my biggest platforms has always been making FIRST spectator friendly, and most mainstream sports don't have anything related to an endgame. 9th inning home runs aren't worth more. Consistent rules leads to ease of watch. This game effectively made the game more spectator friendly without losing an ounce of the challenge of any other FRC game.

Having something completely unrelated to the rest of the game that can dramatically shift the outcome of said game is actually kind of off putting now that I see a game without it.

Seeing that last second ball fly over the truss, or bounce out of a goal, made the end of every tight match so much more dramatic. After watching a couple of matches, I feel anyone could have understood this game, with maybe the concept of the assist needing to be explained to them. That's a very good thing. It was also easy to follow with less game pieces. I know it's a big change, but I think it's the right change.

If you really need an "end game" to make you enjoy the game, just think of the concept of keep playing the game as the end game

[safiq10]

Now I did originally not like the idea of no endgame but I am now a fan of the endgame. It really does make it more like a sporting event because you are on your feet during the last few seconds of the match. I think if they introduced a risk mechanic during endgame it would have really gotten me on my feet.

Example: Team A Vs Team B; The score is 150-190 its the last 30 seconds of the match and the golden ball has been brought into play for both teams if the team can score it they will get 60 pts.

Or if you want to get really daring have the bonus ball come into play at last 30 seconds for the losing team only, but pin times are extended to 7 seconds. That would be interesting to watch.

[pmangels17]

I'm still not sure that you need a new game piece, I think it'd be a cool option to make an alliance take a risk with their current game piece. Then you don't need special rules for the game piece. It's less confusing for the spectators and still adds that level of suspense that doesn't necessarily confuse people. Also, it wouldn't require teams to build additional mechanisms. It seems to be a perfect blend of the two schools of thought, if I do say so myself.

As a side note, I personally did miss the endgame as a way to swing matches, it just wasn't always a very exciting endgame.

[Zylviij]

So far I have heard three options for next year:

1) Active Endgame - intends to add new rules and new objectives in the end of the game to score massive points. The robot would need to implement a new function to overcome a greater challenge.

2) Passive Endgame - intends to change the rules so that new strategies need to be developed but does not need a change on the mechanical robot.

3) No Endgame - keep the excitement to the sport-like rules where the game is governed by the same rules for the entirety of the game.

What type do you like?

[DanielPlotas]

why not both? how about an endgame that only one robot from an alliance can be a part of, while the other robots would continue playing the game.

[DohertyBilly]

I think that FIRST did not include an endgame this year because they introduced a concept that would already heavily influence the design of the robots: catching. Catching was something that was very rarely seen this year because it was incredibly hard to pull off consistently with a potentially disastrous consequence (a free ball on Einstein may have kept the curse alive), and was really not worth that much point wise. People were already sacrificing the 9 points after a missed shot to take the safe low goal; that and not catching were similar sacrifices in order to reduce time spent setting up for the right shot. The only robot I can think of that showed catching consistency was 25, and they decided to completely forego a shooter. Catching and shooting were almost mutually exclusive; adding on a further complexity would have been ridiculous. And it would have reduced the effectiveness of younger teams, as veterans may have seen more opportunity in that than I think many saw in catching. To condense all that: the endgame was replaced by catching, and we didn't see much of it because of the point value. If FIRST wants to promote innovative design by encouraging the accomplishment of multiple tasks, they have to make them appealing enough point wise, and for that there has to be an endgame.

[Chris Endres]

End games are what gave the last six years of spectating that I undertook exciting. The end game requires teams to add another function to their robot to acquire extra points in a small amount of time. Without an end game, previous spectators would most likely get bored, and/or teams won't get the true feeling of accomplishing huge tasks. End game of 2013: climb, 2012: balance, 2011: minibot, 2010: hang, just to name a few.

[David8696]

I personally hope they don't add an endgame. I liked the feel of this year's game much better than any previous: if you look at the world's most popular sports, they're all one relatively simple in concept and explanation. Baseball: "Hit the ball and run around the bases. Repeat for 9 innings." Football: "Throw or run the ball into the end zone. Repeat for 4 15-minute quarters." Basketball: "Put the ball through the hoop. Repeat for 4 12-minute quarters." Soccer: "Kick the ball into the goal. Repeat for 2 45-minute halves." The addition of a dedicated endgame seems, to me, to add too many built-in, GDC-designed complications.

What's great about sports is the fact that incredibly complex situations come from incredibly simple concepts. They all have very straightforward gameplay, but evolve quickly into complicated strategic scenarios. In my opinion, attempting to artificially overcomplicate things draws from the watchability and spectator-friendliness of the game.

[pmangels17]

It may be cool to add an endgame that involves some sort of scoring risk. For example, this year, some scoring bonus (perhaps doubling the points for that cycle or something along those lines) for scoring (only high goal) in the last five seconds of the game.

This would make it a strategic decision for an alliance to hold the ball and wait to try and score, and risk missing. On one hand, you could swing a match to win if you made the shot and otherwise would've been down. You also have to consider that you may miss, and the five second time will not give you a second chance. It could be a good way for an alliance to come back from behind, and force a strategic decision with conditions that would have to be worked out pre-match.

[wasayanwer97]

I'm not sure it should come back, considering the model FIRST seems to be trying to follow.

This year's end of match cycles and last second truss shots arguably brought more people to the edge of their seat than the pyramids did last year. The lack of an endgame also allows spectators to focus on core gameplay, which this year has proven, can be extremely exciting in itself when done well. Having more match time dedicated to core gameplay was also really nice.

I'm admittedly biased towards this match, but the ending there was more exciting than any endgame in my competition years. (The roar from the crowd was INSANE.)
http://youtu.be/THMerdGMBxQ?t=2m21s

In addition, no endgame means less mechanisms. (At least in the case of an active endgame as mentioned above). Fewer mechanisms allow teams to focus on designing the core game play, hopefully resulting in better robots on average. (not always going to happen, I know...) While some will argue that removing complexity from the games simplifies designs, I think this year is proof enough that we will always see ingenious solutions to tasks that seemingly look simple at first.

[donald_pinckney]

Long post incoming on my analysis of the uses of an endgame and what makes them exciting:

I don't think its quite fair to say that this year's end of match is more thrilling than 2013's endgame, and then extend that statement to endgames in general. The consensus seems to be that it was far more gripping to see last minute truss shots, high goal shots under CRAZY defense, or misses in the last 5 seconds than the 2013 endgame, which consisted of 2 or 3 robots that would simply latch onto the pyramid. The 2013 endgame was un-entertaining because it interrupted the play of the match simply so that both alliances would almost automatically get an extra 20-30 points, which very rarely swung any matches. Of course some teams were quite inspirational with the pyramid (254, 148!) but in reality those teams seemed almost non-existent. Even the final match of Einstein ended in 5 robots hanging, which really only padded the scores, and had no element of suspense.

That being said, I don't think this is necessarily true for all endgames. I particularly enjoyed the 2012 bridge balancing endgame, as it added a significant amount of suspense via an action that was significantly more challenging than hanging on the pyramid, required fantastic interaction between alliance members, and was worth enough points relative to the rest of the game to be significant in outcomes.

Finally, I would also say that the need for an endgame depends on the rest of the game: I think an endgame in 2012 was a necessity to break from very routine collection and shooting of balls. For example, without the endgame the blue alliance in the 2012 Einstein final match (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K84uckmXg_c#t=1122) would have had very little hope once they missed shots in auto and were behind. However, the 2012 endgame gave the blue alliance a reasonable chance to win the match by balancing: it seems plausible that the red alliance could have messed up the balance.
In contrast, the 2014 game in my opinion has absolutely no need for an endgame, because a 3 assist cycle ball is worth so many points that any given alliance can jump into the lead by scoring a 3 assist cycle and preventing the opponents from. Last second completed cycles and trusses were game changers this year.

I suppose I come to 2 conclusions:
1) The question of whether an endgame should return is dependent on the rest of the game, and I don't think it makes sense to talk about it out of context.

2) When an endgame is implemented the GDC needs to make sure to balance many factors of it: the difficulty of doing it (you don't want it to be free points like 2013, but it shouldn't be too hard to do, like a 30 point climb); cooperation necessary between alliance members to complete the endgame (if one team failed to hang on the pyramid, you only missed 10 points. If one team messed up on the bridge, you would lose the match); and the relative point value of the endgame (it needs to be enough to swing some matches, but shouldn't be overly domineering).