3 Year FRC Cycle? - The CON's

[Michael Corsetto]

I don't want a year-round build season. January through April is enough for me.

[EricH]

I've also posted this in the pros thread...

But this isn't the first time this idea has come up. Back in 2005, the following thread proposed a replayed game: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=37726

Of course, it did have a few other proposed tweaks, but we'll assume those are completely forgotten about.

[Alexa Stott]

This is a response to a post in the PRO's thread:

Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman

One of the main points brought up in the booklet article is the notion of leaving the game alone to promote spectator familiarity.

They don't completely reinvent the rules of popular televised American sports every year, and that is one of the main reasons such sports maintain the public's interest.

A 3 year game cycle would help the public grow attached to and fully understand and appreciate a particular game for a year or two before reinventing it for the next cycle.

But are we willing to sacrifice the benefits of one game per year in order to appeal to the public? People always talk about having FIRST on ESPN and whatnot, but I honestly don't see that being in the future and I don't understand why people want to emphasize it so much. Isn't FIRST about inspiring students to pursue careers in STEM? I understand that there is a lot of pandering to sponsors and sponsors want publicity, but at what cost? Additionally, most of the qualification matches (at least at regionals) are incredibly boring. There are some matches where 3-4 robots don't even move and the other two just sit there driving in circles, maybe scoring one game piece with their poorly implemented arm/claw. Sure, we might be able to get the public interested in the 2nd or 3rd year of the game, but, again, at what cost to the teams? It would also mean that the public would have to deal with a disappointing year every 3 years.

[Jon Stratis]

Personally... I would get bored. Yeah, the first year would be fun and exciting... But as a mentor, what's left for me to do in the second and third years? There's no real design portion left to help the kids with - they have a working robot with a design sitting right in front of them, and if they were smart, they walked around the regionals the previous year and took detailed notes about the best design so they could copy it. There's nothing new and novel for me to be excited about - I'd essentially be there to watch the kids use the machines and make sure they didn't cut off a limb.

[JohnBoucher]

3 years of Regolith?

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by JohnBoucher

3 years of Regolith?

How many minibot motors can we go through in 3 years?

[Taylor]

I think we've already got this. It's called BotBall.


I think we've already got this. It's called Battlebots.

[EricH]

3 years of:

Loading Zone violations (2005)
Line-crossing penalties (<G22>, 2008)
Lane violations (2011)
Card-happy rules (it's not even really the ref's fault--2011)
Fluky automatic scoring (2006, 2011)

Anybody want that?

The best way to handle a 3-year game is to change point values (say, lower minibot points/raise tube points) and tweak penalties between the years, and maybe make a tweak to the game itself (Lunacy on carpet, anyone?). Oh, and improve stuff like I mentioned earlier.

[JesseK]

Essentially what we'd get is a great first year of the cycle and 2 more years of apathy.

Exactly how are we supposed to motivate students to THINK about a challenge from problem to product if they already know the solutions to the challenge? I think a 2-year cycle would be better, and would allow for exactly 1 chance for another design cycle. Not only could teams redeem themselves for past failures, the GDC could redeem themselves for some of the worst rules in the year. Then, they could also add a twist to the game that would enable them to further challenge teams (4th logomotion shape, 4 levels instead of 3, add in this idea for the minibot, etc).