Human Players and the Game

[kapolavery]

do you feel the game is more better/exciting because of the human element thats added to the game?

i think it was more exciting..plus we could have more team members on the playing field


i also thought that this years game had a relevant real life application:
humans working alongside robots to get a task done..

[EricH]

I'd have to agree with you. There are those who won't, but humans working with robots is a real situation.

I think the prime example was 2004. All points scored in the goals were scored by a human. Robots could feed the human, put a doubler on the goals, or hang from the bar. Robots could also arrange to increase the number of balls sooner than normal.

2009 is also a very good example. I want to say that at least half the points in any given match were scored by the humans, but I'm probably overestimating.

[technoL]

At first I wasn't too comfortable with the idea of one's athletic skill being able to override robot quality. As the game played out, it was evident that though the HP did play a significant role this year, there was still a balance between the two, a single human player couldn't win it alone.

I think the human element only made the game mildly more exciting; the HPs were often scoring moonrocks faster and more frequently than robots and a cross-field supercell score at the last minute was definitely exciting.

[kapolavery]

pretty much the only way those moonrocks were going to get on the field was from the HP missing those shots or the HP feeding the robot.

so in a way, the only way robots could score, aside from being preloaded, was by picking up missed moonrocks from the HP

and yea id have to agree with techno about the HP scoring super cells from long range. those were the nailbiter matches that either make or break the match >.<

[shgshgshgshg]

I don't really feel that having humans in the game this year is really add much. It makes the robot functionality second to the ability of the human players to throw the balls. For example if a team can simply recruit good basketball players they can have a crappy robot, and yet win their matches.

[AlexD744]

Originally Posted by shgshgshgshg

I don't really feel that having humans in the game this year is really add much. It makes the robot functionality second to the ability of the human players to throw the balls. For example if a team can simply recruit good basketball players they can have a crappy robot, and yet win their matches.

Not nessicarliy (sp?). I feel that the human players, whether their basketball players or not, have good matchs and bad matchs, ust like the drivers. It is up to the team to work around problems that the game design implements, such as a team without someone who can make a shot. Back in 2004 our team went to our schools basketball team and held tryouts for those that wanted to go to Orlando and Atlanta. It also helped reach out to more kids from our school. Each year has it's own specific chalenges, and its up to the teams to meet them, whether it deals with robots or humans, because in real life you won't be building a robot that doesn't interact with humans. It's similar to fund-raising, an essential aspect for any robotics team to suceed and yet deals almost nothing with the actual building of a robot.

[bobwrit]

I didn't think having as much human player involvement in the game was a good thing because it made it so that the large temas(50+ members) had a wider base of HP's and can get a better one that the smaller teams(5-15 members).

[Imadapocalypse]

the human player was a great addition to this years game. it felt more dynamic as part of the drive team because you not only had to avoid getting scored on by robots but you could also get scored on by humans as well. it made you think on your feet and drive smarter in order to not get pinned or make yourself an easy target.

[Kristian Calhoun]

Originally Posted by kapolavery

i think it was more exciting..plus we could have more team members on the playing field

For the last several years the number of team members allowed on the playing field, four, has not changed.

[Herodotus]

I don't like the human player being able to directly score, or at least not easily. I've always seen them as facilitating robot function. In 2006 they were mostly used for loading (though it was possible to score in the corner. ) In 2007 they were almost solely used for loading the bot (but, again, could still theoretically score.) In 2008 they could control the bot with the IR controller, and at least on our team served the far more important role of an extra pair of eyes.

So count me as one of the people who doesn't like that the human player can change the game on their own. If the human player can throw in a single ball at the end of the game and change the outcome of the match I don't like it.

[EricLeifermann]

I love when the HP has something important to do. Like 2004 and this past year. It gives more people a sense of importance on the field. I know we've had the same HP for the last 3 years and he likes this year the best and 08 the least because he didn't feel important.

If they aren't going to have something important to do, then at least let them be close to the drive team so they can be an extra set of eyes. Like in 2005 and 2008 where your HP was far away from you and was pretty much useless after the 1st 15 sec. Well not in 2005 but they were completely useless unless you were human loaded with the tetra.

[Jon Jack]

I think humans has too big of a role in this game. Somewhere Karthik said that only 43% of the balls scored on Archimedes were scored by robots. To me, that is way too much for a robotics competition. That is what this is, right?

If matches can be won or lost by a human player, why did I bother building a robot?

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by Jon Jack

I think humans has too big of a role in this game. Somewhere Karthik said that only 43% of the balls scored on Archimedes were scored by robots. To me, that is way too much for a robotics competition. That is what this is, right?

If matches can be won or lost by a human player, why did I bother building a robot?

Yup, after seeing you guys lose with 254 in quarterfinal 1-1 at Vegas to an alliance that only scored 5 balls from a robot, I told my drivers, "this game is broke".

This game allows way too much HP scoring that is entirely independent of robot skill.

[Jon Jack]

Exactly. Having attended three regionals and championships I've seen far too many matches where a weaker alliance had sacrificed their bots to defense (pinning) and let the match be decided on human player skill.

Granted this is not the only major flaw with this game. Often times pinning gets a lot of attention, but it's the human players that have made pinning such a big issue.

I hope both these issues can be addressed at IRI...