What do you think of the design of the game?

[Katy]

Well guys we have all had some time to mull this one over and so now I am curious to know, what do you all think of the game design?

I think this is clearly one of the most unique game designs that FIRST has had. So many years scoring is either "put [shape x] on [shape y]" or "put [shape x] in [goal y]" This game can be commended on its uniqueness.

I am quite surprised that they have returned "real time scoring" to the game instead of having the majority of the score be done by the "end of game state." How do you think the spectators will respond to this? People talk about the issues that arose from Toroid Terror. Are we facing repeats here?

I am slightly concerned that the spectator may also lose some of the entertainment value in the way the game is set up. The balls are a significant engineering challenge in their weight and size but I am not sure how well this will compute to a more general audience. The ratio of scoring objects to robots means that this will not turn into robots simply doing laps but it is concerning that in some matches this may equate to two teams not contributing much to the game.

I am concerned about seeing a lot of robots on their sides. Adding 10 pounds to the robot 20 inches from wherever the possession mechanism starts is no small deal. That's just for possession too mind you, not even talking about putting it over the bars or on the bars. I understand that many people think tetras are a reasonable beginning estimate of the weight but the big deal in CG is that the effective center of the ball is much higher because it is a bigger object. It is also heavier than a tetra. Also remember that when tetras are laying on their sides they have a much lower CG than a spherical ball of the same weight. This is because a lot of the weight on the tetra comes from the pieces that are physically resting against the ground.

This game has effectively destroyed conventional perceptions of "playing defense." I'm sure somebody is going to figure out how to do it but our conventional methods are unlikely to be any good. This is a bold step. I think it is a step in the right direction because this is a change only veteran teams will feel. Rookie teams don't know "how things have always been done" so they aren't going to have issues thinking of "a new way." Everything they think of is effectively "a new way" for them. Veteran teams will have to think outside the box. This keeps the game challenging for them.

It is nice to see the little ways in which FIRST is changing things up with this game. I'm happy to see the human player has been switched out for the robocoach. This isn't really because I dislike the human player so much as because it is great to see a new setup. It is also extreamely realistic and relevant to applied work in the field of robotics.

I'm also thrilled to see that the field is a new shape. I know that people always say they want big field changes but as FIRST likes to use specific venues for competitions more dramatic changes probably aren't reasonable. This change of the angled corners is subtle but in my personal opinion very significant. The idea of "corners" is gone and the idea of finding an out of the way place to be is gone. Theoretically a robot from any position can be asked to move if another robot gets into the position where the first position is "blocking traffic."

There is one thing that is absolutely crystal clear however. FIRST should be commended for doing an excellent job in designing a field that low-budget teams can easily emulate even with severe space and budgetary constraints.

Well that's my two cents. What do you all think?

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by Katy

Well that's my two cents. What do you all think?

I think:
It was a pleasure to read your well thought out post and I'm going to read it again out of appreciation. You found the balance in expressing your concerns along with your positive thoughts.

Thanks Katy!

[ChrisMcK2186]

Wow, nice thoughts.

I personally am not wild about the game, I still like it though. I was hoping for something, well, different from what we got. This year seems to strike me as roboNASCAR.

I guess I was just hoping that the FRC my senior year would be more like older games.

Chris McKenzie
2186

[Katy]

Originally Posted by ChrisMcK2186
I guess I was just hoping that the FRC my senior year would be more like older games.

You can not wish for things to remain the same just for the sake of remaining the same. That is not how you innovate. That is not how you make an idea that will change the world. Insisting on keeping things just as they are only barely maintains a declining status quo because if you do not take advantage of a new opportunity somebody else will.

Originally Posted by GeeForce
Although I disagree with you on one point - I personally think the audience will get a huge kick out of seeing 3.5' balls hurling through the air (in the event that teams take that route)

If somebody does start throwing balls you are completely right. That's going to be really interesting...and by interesting I mean terrifying. As my job puts me pretty near the field I may maintain the right to run for cover. On some level I consider it a slight oversight of FIRST to not have made the outside walls higher relative to that scoring zone. Even if all the people run that ball can do a serious job on, for example, the desk of electronic goodness where all of the sound system comes from and the game announcer sits.

[ChrisMcK2186]

I wasn't saying change shouldn't happen, far from it. I was instead implying that I would have liked an objective based game instead of a race.

The effectiveness of communication is based on how well the communicator can convey his point. In this regard, I can't communicate

The more I think about the game and plan it, it does seem to fit more in my team's niche; very little manipulation required to have a robot capable of scoring high.

Chris McKenzie
2186

But we couldn't get Betsy(07) to drive straight...

[Kacey Kinsel]

Katy - nice perspective on this year's challenge. I don't know how early FIRST has the game locked down, But I think the straightforward elements of OVERDRIVE offers the 318 rookie teams a chance to perform. - KK

[dlavery]

Katy-

Thank you very much for your thoughts.

While I may agree with many of your insights, and disagree with others, the thing that I appreciate the most is the mature, thoughtful, well reasoned presentation of your opinions. By providing supporting information to back up your opinions, you have helped us see the careful consideration and thought that you put into each one. This type of carefully crafted discourse helps raise the level and quality of the entire discussion, no matter which side of the debate you may be on. Well done.

-dave

[ChuckDickerson]

What do I think? I think Katy is just about 100% spot on. Katy seems to have a nack for predicting how the game will play out over the season and I think she may have done it again this year. Katy, thank you for your well thought out post. It is refreshing with all the "why I don't like this game" posts going around. I would surely give you positive rep but it says I must "spread some around first".

For the record I like the game and commend the GDC for the bold steps taken this year to reduce the gap between the rookies and the vets and toward the excessive defensive play we had started to see in the last couple of years. I pretty much like the GAME 100%. So far (as far as the ROBOT rules go) the only thing I am not really excited about is the mandatory bumper rule and for some reason I think the 75" flag rule is going to be a bit of an issue. Of course, I am still absorbing all the rules so my opinion may change but right now I like 95% of it. On the plus side the revised "tape" rule is great. I just wish it was worded that way LAST YEAR!

[MrForbes]

I think the game design is really nifty....who'da thunk we'd be racing cars in a FIRST competition? A dream come true

[stevek]

All I can say is, every year we are in stunned silence after the game description ends. We wait impatiently as Dave, Woody, and Dean play a mock game show- only to finally get the unlock code to see what it is all about. Yes the initial game seemed Simple, 40inch balls dont sound all that hard, till you pick them up!!! Knocking it off the tack- no problem (what a height restiction?)- (hair falls to the floor) [ok they deleted that one- thank goodness] Then our wheels start turning as we read through all the Game and Robot Rules and solidify the size and scale of the field apperatus, and then it hits us... there are true problems to solve, there are enginering feats to accomplish and in 10 minutes the pizza is arriving!

I think this is the other side of complexity and if we simply build a miniture nascar racebot, we may miss some pretty improtant mind streching lessons.

Once again, good luck to you all.

[GUI]

I really like how the game makes teams change their design strategy. It seems that in previous years, the approach to chassis design has been to make the beefiest, strongest pushing machine. However, Overdrive requires a very different approach. This not only forces teams to broaden their horizons and consider other aspects of chassis design; it also seems like it will level the playing field a bit. Instead of veteran teams improving upon tried and trued designs while rookies are learning the basics, the older teams have to take a few steps back and learn same new things as well.
Overdrive also seems more spectator-friendly. Most everyone understands the concept of a race, so it's easier to understand what is going on if you haven't read the rules. There also seems to be something appealing about the concept of robots throwing giant balls while traveling at high speeds...

[Grant Cox]

I think this is one of the most objective, mature, and thought-out posts so far regarding this game. Initially, I bet we all had the same thought progression:

- upon seeing the game in kickoff - "this is way too simple, why on earth did they do that"
- upon playing with the Trackball and inspecting the rules closer - "this is a horrible game, why on earth would they do this and this and this, way too complicated and complex"

Now, taking a step back and approaching the challenge of the game head-on, I think more of us are heading into the lines of thought you brought up. Although I disagree with you on one point - I personally think the audience will get a huge kick out of seeing 3.5' balls hurling through the air (in the event that teams take that route)

[Koko Ed]

There are a couple more things I would've like. Corner banking or a variety of hurdle. I'm thinking like the barrier in the 2001 game that teams could use to drive under, climb over or have the teeter totter ramp to go up and down with on the turns.

[smurfgirl]

Originally Posted by Katy

FIRST should be commended for doing an excellent job in designing a field that low-budget teams can easily emulate even with severe space and budgetary constraints.

Well that's my two cents. What do you all think?

I agree with a lot of what you said; it was very insightful and well-written. Although there are a lot of changes which I would have preffered the old way, I think that the new game is a nice change, and that FIRST did a good job coming up with something new and exciting.

However... I disagree with the part of your post which I quoted above. It is hard to build the field if you are short on space; the center divider is 27 feet long, the overpass is 27 feet across, and it's 6.5 feet high. That's pretty hard to build and store if you don't have much space to work with. Back in Aim High, we had trouble finding a place for a cut-out sheet propped upright for a corner goal, a half ramp, and a high goal top half... and those are a lot smaller than the overpass/divider. Given, you don't have to build the whole overpass/divider... so maybe I'm wrong.

[Katy]

Originally Posted by smurfgirl

It is hard to build the field if you are short on space; the center divider is 27 feet long, the overpass is 27 feet across, and it's 6.5 feet high. That's pretty hard to build and store if you don't have much space to work with. Back in Aim High, we had trouble finding a place for a cut-out sheet propped upright for a corner goal, a half ramp, and a high goal top half... and those are a lot smaller than the overpass/divider. Given, you don't have to build the whole overpass/divider... so maybe I'm wrong.

I was more imagining teams would make the rail (maybe not even at full length) and then just throw on a pair of ladders at the right height with some clamps for prototyping. The center divider doesn't appear to be a very significant visibility barrier so you could just approximate it with some traffic cones or something. I don't know when I talk about low budget prototyping I mean cardboard and thumbtacks sometimes...I mean if it works why pour extra money in to it?

Also about the defense issue. Check out this excellent post about defense in this game. http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=61047