[FAF] - June 28, 2013 - Game Design Committee

[GaryVoshol]

I'm guessing the question defined "main event" as being the part of the game in between autonomous and the end game. While this year's end game didn't have a specified time limit, it still was an end game because you had to be on the pyramid at the end of the game.

[Caleb Sykes]

Sometimes, when looking at a complaint about scoring values, it is useful to look at the team's context. Team 3289 competed at the Utah regional, they went 10-4 overall. The lost one qual match to the Hawaiian Kids (enough said, you guys are awesome). In their other 3 losing matches, they played against 1891, the best high-level climber there.

Believe me, I know how it feels to lose matches because there are other robots that can do things that your robot cannot, it stinks. Afterward, all that I think is what ifs.
What if we had spent our time designing a minibot deployment system.
What if we had had different wheels so that we could balance more easily.
What if we had built a climber instead of a floor pick-up device.

This is the one statement that I have trouble with:

If the side events score is decreased, maybe we can get back to all-around robots vs. specialized "point bots".

Personally, I would much rather see 10 FCSs, 10 ground pick-up bots, 10 3rd-level climbers, 10 cyclers, and 10 defenders that are all specialized than 50 all-around so-so robots when I go to a competition. Then, when we all play, it will become apparent what the strongest strategy is.

Engineering is optimizing and trade-offs. FRC is the same. Choose the best strategy that your team can manage, then optimize until you run out of ideas, brainstorm some more, and optimize again. If the GDC wanted, they could make games where only one thing happens, and we would all become excellent at optimizing. But they don't, because they want us to make trade-offs.

I hope the best for you guys, 3289. You appear to have done well this year. My one suggestion would be to spend 1 more day in the early build season analyzing the game and determining trade-offs.

EDIT: Pault added in 3289's context, beat me to it

[Mr. Lim]

This year's game was REALLY hard. Arguably the hardest FRC game I've ever been involved with, dating back to 1998.

It would be too easy to tell this mentor "Hey! None of the 3 World Championship winning teams could climb past 10 pts. They were dedicated Main Event-ers! They were pretty darned successful!"

The irony is, because the game was so hard, it actually worked to the advantage of the non-elite teams. If they had the cajones to pick just one thing to do well, and spent the entire build season dedicated to doing that one thing at a World Class level, they had a shot at winning big this year. I saw a lot of teams in Ontario make huge strides with their on-field performance, because they took this philosophy.

Even the best of the elite teams struggled to "do everything" and do it really well this year. There's a long list of historically great FRC teams who didn't have as much success this year because they built robots that tried to do too much, and ended up doing everything poorly. In fact, the two robots who put up the single biggest individual scores in matches this year (469 and 1310) notably couldn't climb past 10 pts. I don't recall any robot that even came close in individual robot scoring (~140 points in a single match) that could 30 point climb.

I actually think the game needs to be "too hard" to give teams like 3289 the best chance at winning. To take advantage of this, it means teams have to bite the bullet, and focus on building robots that do one or two things really really well, then lean on great strategy and scouting to piece a winning alliance together.

It probably also means the end of an era of dominant robots that can "do everything," but I too think this is probably a good thing...

[rachelholladay]

GDC, don't get self-conscious and feel bad. We like you. You've made two great, fun, exciting games. Keep 'em coming.

[nicholsjj]

Part of this should make people realize how hard the GDC's job is when they design a game. Point Evaluation is such a difficult requirement for any GDC due to them not being able to see what the teams and robots are capable of. The person who asked the question asked why the climb value was so high, but I saw many cimbs either removed or not picked due to their respective value compared to the overall field. I would wish I could PM this guy to tell him that my personal favorite climber this year did not get picked at champs(1421).

Back to the overall game design for FIRST. I also believe that providing multiple strategic options for teams to focus on in the game is very important. I believe teams would be very scared if they were forced to compete in one specific task against teams such as 67,111,254,469, and 1114( ). Teams need variability in order to be competitive(IMO). The GDC did a fantastic job this year in particular for providing a game with so many multiple ways to become a valuable alliance partner. Just look at the Division Elims(as well as IRI next month) to get a true sense of how many different strategies were used.

The one item I didn't like about this year's game was the cost to build a "close" practice field. To be either a good FCS or pyramid climber teams would usually have to shell out around quite a bit of cash. This isn't a bad thing, but I would personally like a game with an end game field structure that is cheaper to build like 2011 instead of 2012/13.

[ttldomination]

Originally Posted by nicholsjj

Back to the overall game design for FIRST. I also believe that providing multiple strategic options for teams to focus on in the game is very important. I believe teams would be very scared if they were forced to compete in one specific task against teams such as 67,111,254,469, and 1114( ). Teams need variability in order to be competitive(IMO). The GDC did a fantastic job this year in particular for providing a game with so many multiple ways to become a valuable alliance partner. Just look at the Division Elims(as well as IRI next month) to get a true sense of how many different strategies were used.

Now, I'm playing devil's advocate, but I also understand where OP (of the question) is coming from.

Let's say that we took this year's game and removed the climbing portion entirely. Do you believe that there would be much difference in the abilities of the top tier machines? Even a difference between the mid-tier and top-tier teams?

If anything, the strategic *variety* plays to the strengths of resource-heavy teams that can allocate resources to accommodate a majority of strategies.

However, rather than attempt to justify this disparity, I choose to embrace it. I know that my students will play in scenarios in which they are outgunned by teams who didn't have to "stretch" as much (or so it seems), and it's a scenario that my students and I have grown to expect and to learn from.

Originally Posted by nicholsjj

The one item I didn't like about this year's game was the cost to build a "close" practice field. To be either a good FCS or pyramid climber teams would usually have to shell out around quite a bit of cash. This isn't a bad thing, but I would personally like a game with an end game field structure that is cheaper to build like 2011 instead of 2012/13.

+1 here.

- Sunny G.

[cmrnpizzo14]

Originally Posted by nicholsjj

The one item I didn't like about this year's game was the cost to build a "close" practice field. To be either a good FCS or pyramid climber teams would usually have to shell out around quite a bit of cash. This isn't a bad thing, but I would personally like a game with an end game field structure that is cheaper to build like 2011 instead of 2012/13.

Why do you need a great practice field to be a good FCS? As Paul said above, we were a good FCS (not to toot our own horn) and all we built was a feeder slot and the 3pt goal. We later built a 2pt goal after the first regional but I wouldn't say we spent more than $50 constructing the necessary field elements this year.

[nicholsjj]

Originally Posted by cmrnpizzo14

Why do you need a great practice field to be a good FCS? As Paul said above, we were a good FCS (not to toot our own horn) and all we built was a feeder slot and the 3pt goal. We later built a 2pt goal after the first regional but I wouldn't say we spent more than $50 constructing the necessary field elements this year.

How much did you pay for Frisbees? I was looking more at the cost to build a pyramid for the price of the field elements. I also think it hurts our team not having a gym in order to get the 54 foot length, but thats usually not a big deal overall for most teams.

[cmrnpizzo14]

Originally Posted by nicholsjj

How much did you pay for Frisbees? I was looking more at the cost to build a pyramid for the price of the field elements. I also think it hurts our team not having a gym in order to get the 54 foot length, but thats usually not a big deal overall for most teams.

You need 50+ feet to get realistic testing or practice as an FCS.

We only had 6 frisbees this year so I think we spent $30 then? I don't remember the pricing on them.

We did not have a gym either, we used the school's cafeteria and simply taped out a field. it wasn't perfect, but it was close enough.

[z_beeblebrox]

Originally Posted by cmrnpizzo14

Why do you need a great practice field to be a good FCS? As Paul said above, we were a good FCS (not to toot our own horn) and all we built was a feeder slot and the 3pt goal. We later built a 2pt goal after the first regional but I wouldn't say we spent more than $50 constructing the necessary field elements this year.

You need 50+ feet to get realistic testing or practice as an FCS.

[Tetraman]

I love hearing more about the GDC every time I can, but this is just basic stuff that I already assumed so I didn't gain anything from it.

But the fact of the matter is this is a bad year to bring up the question that this team/individual had. How about Rebound Rumble where having to balance robots on the alliance bridge was (not always but usually) paramount to winning a match.

Of course YES it depended a lot on the event you were at, but the truth is that the Pyramid Climb above 10 points was...well...not worth it from a game-play point of view. It reminded me of 2005, where trying to make as many scattered tic-tac-toe rows was not as key than making two rows and protecting them while spending the rest of your time scoring a ton of 3 pointers.

[Pault]

Originally Posted by inkling16

Sometimes, when looking at a complaint about scoring values, it is useful to look at the team's context. Team 3289 competed at the Utah regional, they went 10-4 overall. The lost one qual match to the Hawaiian Kids (enough said, you guys are awesome). In their other 3 losing matches, they played against 1891, the best high-level climber there.

Believe me, I know how it feels to lose matches because there are other robots that can do things that your robot cannot, it stinks. Afterward, all that I think is what ifs.
What if we had spent our time designing a minibot deployment system.
What if we had had different wheels so that we could balance more easily.
What if we had built a climber instead of a floor pick-up device.

I can definitely see what you mean. This year my team competed in 2 competitions so far: the Boston Regional and Beantown Blitz.* At the Boston regional, we played a qualification match, a replay of that match, and 3 semifinal matches against 3173, a fcs. We won the 2 qualification matches because 3173 was broken, and then we won the first semifinal match, but then they beat us twice. At Beantown Blitz we played 195, a fcs, 4 times: 2 qualification matches and 2 quarterfinal matches. We lost to them 4 times. After seeing this, members of my team compared the simplicity of 3173 and 195 to our relatively complex floor pickup robot, and it began to seem like we made a bad design choice. We weren't angry at anybody because of it, but I can see why the asker might have needed someone to place the blame on.

*We attended the WPI regional, but it would be a big stretch to say that we competed in it.

Originally Posted by inkling16

This is the one statement that I have trouble with:

["If the side events score is decreased, maybe we can get back to all-around robots vs. specialized 'point bots'."]

Personally, I would much rather see 10 FCSs, 10 ground pick-up bots, 10 3rd-level climbers, 10 cyclers, and 10 defenders that are all specialized than 50 all-around so-so robots when I go to a competition. Then, when we all play, it will become apparent what the strongest strategy is. Engineering is optimizing and trade-offs. FRC is the same. Choose the best strategy that your team can manage, then optimize until you run out of ideas, brainstorm some more, and optimize again. If the GDC wanted, they could make games where only one thing happens, and we would all become excellent at optimizing. But they don't, because they want us to make trade-offs.

I hope the best for you guys, 3289. You appear to have done well this year. My one suggestion would be to spend 1 more day in the early build season analyzing the game and determining trade-offs.

EDIT: Pault added in 3289's context, beat me to it

I agree with the askers statement, actually. He is not saying he wants 50 all-around bots, he's saying he wants a few all-around bots mixed in with all of the specialized bots. I would love a game like that. Then, you still get the design trade offs, and you still get to see which strategy is best, but at the same time you have some of the best teams building these bots that are so inspirational because they manage to do everything. Just look at 118's reveal video this year. And even the decision to be an all-around robot is a trade off because it could easily be more effective to just specialize.

[GBK]

The Main Event...Is the main event the period between autonomous and the end game? Or is the does the main event have something to do with the "Name of the Game"
I am one of those that think the challenge was just right this year. The climb was a huge engineering challenge and had big risk. (fall off the tower and see the results) Once you got it figured out many did not have time to put too much into a shooter. However the relative ease of finding disk throwing machines on Youtube made it possible for rookie teams to make something that could score and they could do well. The scoring between the two tasks were a good balance. A good disk shooter could out score a climber without to much problem. The GDC has a fine line to walk in making a game that challenges the veteran teams and is still obtainable for a rookie team with limited resources. Keep up the good work, GDC and Teams!