Best FRC Games

[Jogo]

Hi CD,

Let's decide once and for all which FRC game reigns supreme!

http://www.pubblepin.com/polls/30?t=best-frc-games

P.S. This is a tool I built for a course I'm taking. You can use it to rank anything collaboratively--top FRC teams, top FRC robots, potential robot designs for your team, etc. Feel free to use it for whatever you can think of

[joelg236]

553 votes... Score = 1929... How are the scores determined?
http://www.pubblepin.com/polls/30?co...best-frc-games

[Jogo]

The scores are determined by a modified ELO algorithm, which is the algorithm used for chess players, among other things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system

[Damiaen_Florian]

Breakaway ranks 6th???

[Jay O'Donnell]

I feel like the newer games are ranking higher since most people in FIRST now that are here on CD haven't been around since the '90s. Still a really good idea, nice job!

[bardd]

I suggest adding a page that summerizes the games, maybe with pictures or videos, so that the newer people like myself will get to know pre-2003 games that have no game animation. Also, this way the website can double as a nice resource.

[Jay O'Donnell]

Originally Posted by bardd

I suggest adding a page that summerizes the games, maybe with pictures or videos, so that the newer people like myself will get to know pre-2003 games that have no game animation. Also, this way the website can double as a nice resource.

I second this suggestion, as going by a few paragraphs on wikipedia isn't helping me get a good grasp of the games from the 90s.

[Jogo]

Thanks for the feedback--I will keep working hard to improve it and come back with a new poll in the near future.

Also, looking at the results, it seems apparent that people vote for the games they know. For voters with 0-3 years FRC experience the top five games are an average of 2.4 years old. For voters with 4-6 years experience, its 3.8 years, and for 7-9 its 5.2 years.

[Lil' Lavery]

Not surprising, but a heavy bias in the rankings towards recent games.

[~Cory~]

Its still pretty surprising that breakaway ranked so low. IMHO: aim high and breakway FTW.

[StevenB]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Not surprising, but a heavy bias in the rankings towards recent games.

All the young'uns don't know what they missed. A more accurate model might ask folks which years they watched/played and then normalize the results based on the number of "eligible voters".

[TheMadCADer]

Originally Posted by ~Cory~

Its still pretty surprising that breakaway ranked so low. IMHO: aim high and breakway FTW.

I personally disliked Breakaway, mostly because it discouraged different designs (even by FIRST standards) and every robot looked the same. As far as the past few years are concerned, FIRST already ends up being a bunch of very similar robots, with the most well refined design winning, but 2010 was worse than usual (really only 469 had a successful 'unique' design). Also, the issues in the ranking system early on really turned me off to it.

The only redeeming part was the end-game, which encouraged a ton of innovative designs.

To be fair, I was raised on BEST Robotics, so I have a thing for solutions that can do about 7 separate operations at once using 2 motors and maybe a servo or two. I also love plywood, PVC, and duct tape. I mean, in 2010 I made a (ridiculously successful) sub-assembly that was composed entirely of 1 motor, bits of string, an entire roll of duct tape, and two small sections of PVC pipe. Now, it was all very precise (we made at least 12 prototype versions of that thing to perfect it) and looked quite good by BEST standards, but I never saw anything quite like it the whole year.

[dtengineering]

Originally Posted by TheMadCADer

I personally disliked Breakaway, mostly because it discouraged different designs (even by FIRST standards) and every robot looked the same....

Not to go too far off track, but all the paintings in the Louvre "look the same" if you don't know what to look for. I saw LOTS of design variance in the Breakaway bots... you just had to look beyond the low centre of gravity requirements.

Admittedly, I wouldn't be able to put up any favorites from before '03, but not only was "Aim High" the best game I've ever played, but that robot has been our "go-to demo robot" ever since. When other robots got pulled apart and scavenged for parts, the "Nerf Ball Shooter" was too cool to touch. (Okay, we stripped a couple redundant CIMs off of it... but its pushing battles were over.)

Of course, it's like picking The Beatles vs. The Stones vs. Michael Jackson vs. Elvis vs. Madonna vs. AC/DC as the best rock act ever. Fun, but relatively pointless.

Jason

[TheMadCADer]

Originally Posted by dtengineering

Not to go too far off track, but all the paintings in the Louvre "look the same" if you don't know what to look for. I saw LOTS of design variance in the Breakaway bots... you just had to look beyond the low centre of gravity requirements.

...

Jason

The issue I had was that most of the top teams had the same ball-grabber (clamp, with a few rollers out there too) and kicker (elastic powered blunt object, wound up by some sort of cam system). The main differences were in the drivetrain for crossing the bump (though few teams did more than just a 6-8 wheel setup. Some, like 1625, had very cool drivetrains, and others made neat suspension systems) as well as endgame devices.

Whenever I watched a round between multiple 'good' robots the difference between the winner and loser was usually whoever was able to line up their shots best and not have balls bounce out of the goals. It was just too driver-dependent for me. I'd rather see a team win because they found a way to play the game that its designers never expected, and built a completely unique robot. That's what I loved about 469, it was nearly game-breaking while being elegantly simple.

[CalTran]

Originally Posted by TheMadCADer

I'd rather see a team win because they found a way to play the game that its designers never expected, and built a completely unique robot. That's what I loved about 469, it was nearly game-breaking while being elegantly simple.

Alas, if only figuring out what makes or breaks a game were that simple. Particularly in the method that FIRST presents the games, it's hard to think outside the normal configuration when Breakaway was described best as robot soccer or Rebound Rumble as robot basketball. The description really drives the design, as many teams forget that Breakaway was not soccer reliant, but simply a name of the game where the goal was transport a ball to a hole in the wall.

Personally, I'm a Breakaway fan (With heavy bias as it was my rookie season.) Everything that year, from being the third pick of the second alliance at Greater Kansas City with 16 and 1625, to rising to the #1 Seed and first alliance captains in Oklahoma City, to striding across the floor of the Georgia Dome, was amazing. The robots, IMHO, were totally different that year too. As stated, it takes an eye that sees past the exterior generic box shape and sees what's within the box that truly amazed me.