Favorite FRC Game?

[JamesCH95]

2004 is my favorite , seeing as few if any robots could do everything in the game. Alliance selection became geared towards matching your capabilities with your partners. I liked mobile and stationary goals. I liked two different game pieces. I liked a high-impact human player role, i.e. actually scoring, not just returning game pieces to the playing field or handing game pieces to the robot, both of which struck me as somewhat menial. There was no game-breaker strategy, and interference with end-game was allowed, which we used to great effect!

[Nemo]

I only go back to 2009, but I think Rebound Rumble is the best of the four games I've been involved in. The fact that it is already fairly exciting to watch in week 1 bodes well.

My least favorite thing about 2011 Logomotion was that the GDC told us exactly what we had to do and in what order, and there was relatively little we could do to choose an innovative strategy. I also didn't like the diminishing returns for achieving excellence in tube hanging. I think this year is better than last year on both counts.

If 2004 was as much of a trade-off fest as people are saying, I'd like to play a game like that.

[Greg Leighton]

I can't comment much on games I never personally spectated so from 2008-2012 my favorite would be Rebound Rumble, thought about it for a long time and came to the conclusion this game has done it the best. 2008 has sentimental value for me being that it was my only year as a student in FIRST and also because our robot just had such a unique way of playing the game it was always fun to watch, but all things considered it was a very simple game and didn't get exciting unless you had high levels of competition.

But back to Rebound Rumble, why is it such a great spectator game?

• Its Basketball! Kind of.. One way or another its easy for people to understand what scores points
• Hybrid mode is just as exciting as any in recent memory, I thought last year was exciting but with this year being less predictable in the way of game pieces, you don't know if that robot that has made all of his hybrid baskets thus far will continue the trend or miss a crucial game deciding shot.
• Coopertition bridge. This bridge can put you ahead of the competition in qualifying rounds or it can take you from losing a match to winning the qualification points you would get for the win. Nice job from the GDC to rework the idea of coopertition and make it something people will cheer for.
• Just like in basketball, you will have clutch game winning shots. This game has the potential for more of these exciting moments than any other game I can think of.
• The bridge balance. Watching three robots or even two trying to balance on these bridges is infinitely entertaining regardless of whether or not they actually do succeed. Add the large number of points these bridges are worth and they are definitely something to watch.
• The last minute shots. Watching a human player make a basket in the last seconds is just as exciting as a robot. Not too many games have the element of a last second human player influence

[DSM33]

Originally Posted by Greg Leighton

But back to Rebound Rumble, why is it such a great spectator game?

• Its Basketball! Kind of.. One way or another its easy for people to understand what scores points
• Hybrid mode is just as exciting as any in recent memory, I thought last year was exciting but with this year being less predictable in the way of game pieces, you don't know if that robot that has made all of his hybrid baskets thus far will continue the trend or miss a crucial game deciding shot.
• Coopertition bridge. This bridge can put you ahead of the competition in qualifying rounds or it can take you from losing a match to winning the qualification points you would get for the win. Nice job from the GDC to rework the idea of coopertition and make it something people will cheer for.
• Just like in basketball, you will have clutch game winning shots. This game has the potential for more of these exciting moments than any other game I can think of.
• The bridge balance. Watching three robots or even two trying to balance on these bridges is infinitely entertaining regardless of whether or not they actually do succeed. Add the large number of points these bridges are worth and they are definitely something to watch.
• The last minute shots. Watching a human player make a basket in the last seconds is just as exciting as a robot. Not too many games have the element of a last second human player influence

This is also why 2010 is my favorite game I have been involved in so far. I was literally about to post mostly the same list for Breakaway but for hanging (flip hangs and the ONE double hang at MSC were the best). i think that if a non-FIRSTer can come into the arena and be able to figure out the game within a couple matches then it is a marketable, awesomely simple game. I think that Rebound Rumble has this potential too.

Lunacy did have a huge human influence but that didn't make the rest of the game better.... :/

Top 5:
5. 2001 (race against the clock was cool!)
4. 2004
3. 2007 and 2011 (basically the same game save for minibots/ramps)
2. 2005
1. 2010 (possibly 2012)

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by DSM33

This is also why 2010 is my favorite game I have been involved in so far. I was literally about to post mostly the same list for Breakaway but for hanging (flip hangs and the ONE double hang at MSC were the best). i think that if a non-FIRSTer can come into the arena and be able to figure out the game within a couple matches then it is a marketable, awesomely simple game. I think that Rebound Rumble has this potential too.

Lunacy did have a huge human influence but that didn't make the rest of the game better.... :/

Top 5:
5. 2001 (race against the clock was cool!)
4. 2004
3. 2007 and 2011 (basically the same game save for minibots/ramps)
2. 2005
1. 2010 (possibly 2012)

2001 was about as far as you could possibly get from having a non-FIRSTer figure out the scoring of the game within a few matches. I remember sitting in the VIP room in Philadelphia with people who had been there all weekend and still couldn't tabulate the scores themselves. It was an absurdly complicated and esoteric game.

Also, 2007 and 2011 were very different in terms of crowd appeal and gameplay. 2007's scoring was a lot more difficult to tabulate off hand, given its exponential nature (though the general sense of "long rows are good" was easy to convey). Additionally, in 2007 each alliance had their own scoring pieces but shared a scoring area (the rack). In 2011 it was the opposite, as alliances shared scoring pieces but had individual scoring areas.
Just because both games had tubes placed on pegs doesn't make them similar.

[maltz1881]

I am going to show how long I have been in FIRST. My favorite game was Stack Attack!! That was a very long time ago!

[Mr. Van]

I've noticed that some are talking about playing the game, and others watching it. I think that these are very different.

For watching, it also depends on wether or not you are a "FIRSTer" or an "off the street" spectator.

From talking to people "off the street" here's some thoughts:

Rebound Rumble - easy to understand, fantastic endgame. I think the GDC got the balance between the endgame, hybrid & teleop just about right. The Coopertition Bridge is a bit confusing ("Why didn't they get points for balancing the bridge?!?"), but it makes just about every matchup a possibly exciting match. The only thing lacking (so far from what I've seen) is the lack of opponent interaction, but the Coopertition Bridge does a good job of making up for that.

Logomotion - You could actually keep track of who was winning as the game progressed without any "real-time scorekeeping" system. The minibots were cool, but the faster they got, the less exciting they were. I think the GDC was expecting a 5 to 10 second race of minibots up the poles, not a blink-and-you-miss-it lottery that determines the win.

Aim High - Exciting, but the scoring periods were very confusing - often people couldn't understand why teams stopped scoring. Good endgame.

Breakaway - Easy to understand, but the 1st week regionals were so plagued with penalties that they game was changed. Endgame was not worth enough points. Ranking teams was very confusing.

These next few are all about the same. Good games, but they have spectator flaws that make them hard to follow.

Triple Play - Teams actually had to strategize on the fly, trying to make and block rows. "Impossible" autonomous mode, which meant a boring start. No real endgame. (The strategy element of this game makes it one of my favorites, and once I would explain to spectators "look at the rows - it's like tic-tac-toe" they would get it easily. Without this explanation, they never seemed to figure out what was going on.) There was also the huge penalty problem...

Overdrive - Very cool to watch robots toss the huge trackball, or run very, very fast around the track. Too many confusing penalties. Not very interesting overall.

Rack 'n' Roll - Good endgame, good basic form, but the special tubes and the exponential scoring made it problematic.

FIRST Frenzy - Fantastic challenge, exciting endgame, but way to much going on for someone to figure out.

Zone Zeal - The eliminations were substantially different from the qualifications. No endgame (at least not once certain strategies were allowed...) Ranking based on looser score was confusing to many.

Coopertition - Good solid game. Nice endgame. Just not fantastic.

These games were "less than spectator friendly"

Stack Attack - Nobody made stacks... This made it an exciting first 10 seconds and exciting final 10 seconds, but not much to watch in the middle.

Diabolical Dynamics - I actually liked the 4 vs. 0 game, but it was difficult to follow in terms of scoring. "What are they trying to do?" was a common question. Any game that can have "good" rounds score between 3 and 700 points has a problem.

Lunacy - Aptly named. It just about always ended up with bots crammed together slowly moving around each other trying to get any sort of advantage. (It really reminded me of those old school "electric" football games.)

I think the quality of the games have improved in general, and certainly in terms of spectator experience. The scoring has simplified. Any time there is something that multiplied (or changed the exponent!) of the score, it makes the point values swing far too wildly.

Now for actually playing the games, or watching them from the standpoint of having been on a team, that's a different story...

- Mr. Van
Coach, Robodox

[waialua359]

AIM HIGH!
Who doesnt like machine guns and shooting at targets?

**video game freak**

[BrandonHiggs]

The 2004 game is by far my favorite. Nothing can beat hanging in the endgame. It was exciting for the crowd to watch. I also loved how diverse teams were in robot design. 67's wedgebot from that year is still my all time favorite FRC robot.

[ThirteenOfTwo]

My 2011-compiled elements of a good FRC spectator game:

1) Robots moving quickly around or across the field
2) Flying things
3) Scoring that the audience can understand
4) Highly visible and important endgame
5) Well-weighted scoring

Logomotion: 1, 2, 3, maybe 5
Breakaway: 3, 4, sometimes 2
Lunacy: 2, 3
Overdrive: 1, 2, 3, maybe 5

I fell like this largely holds true--most of the people I talk to enjoyed watching Logomotion and Overdrive and disliked Lunacy and Breakaway.

So far, Rebound Rumble is a tale of two games--in qualifications it has 2, 3, 4, and maybe (we'll see) 5. In eliminations teams start playing defense, and it meets all five criteria, which says to me that the GDC is learning more and more what makes their games popular.

[cgmv123]

Are you saying the minibots from LogoMotion didn't qualify as a "highly visible and important endgame"?

[efoote868]

Originally Posted by cgmv123

Are you saying the minibots from LogoMotion didn't qualify as a "highly visible and important endgame"?

When a climb lasts 2 seconds, I wouldn't call that "highly visible".

[DSM33]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

2001 was about as far as you could possibly get from having a non-FIRSTer figure out the scoring of the game within a few matches. I remember sitting in the VIP room in Philadelphia with people who had been there all weekend and still couldn't tabulate the scores themselves. It was an absurdly complicated and esoteric game.

Also, 2007 and 2011 were very different in terms of crowd appeal and gameplay. 2007's scoring was a lot more difficult to tabulate off hand, given its exponential nature (though the general sense of "long rows are good" was easy to convey). Additionally, in 2007 each alliance had their own scoring pieces but shared a scoring area (the rack). In 2011 it was the opposite, as alliances shared scoring pieces but had individual scoring areas.
Just because both games had tubes placed on pegs doesn't make them similar.

I wasn't saying that easy scoring calculations was the criteria for all my favorites. Everything from 1 down isn't that easy to calculate quickly or follow simply. The best FRC Games are though, imho. the other games I listed I just thought were cool!

[bduddy]

Something that I think is often overlooked, but that I think is essential for a good game from an entertainment/spectator perspective, is interaction between the teams/robots. Not necessarily physical interaction, i.e. robot contact (although it certainly helps), but interaction of strategies: offense AND defense, and teams working against each other rather than just trying to rack up points. This is why I loved Triple Play, really disliked Logomotion, and think that this year's game will probably turn out very well once all of the teams figure it out.

[Bongle]

Originally Posted by Cory

Did you forget 2004, or do you really think it's that bad?

I honestly didn't like it that much, but I wasn't involved that much that year so I can't make a real judgement and put it on the spectrum. My most-intense memory of 2004 is getting eliminated by a team just because they had a better basketball player than ours. I really disliked how key human players were that year - they were even more important than in 2009.