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

[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.