The Not So-Secret Secret End-Game

[Racer26]

Originally Posted by BBray_T1296

Can someone explain to me the word AERIAL in the game name please? Yeah you throw a ball, but game pieces have been 8' in the air for years now.

Or there's a climbing based end-game using the seemingly over-built truss that they plan to release after Ri3D's have done their thing but early enough in build to not screw people up too bad.

FIRST knew (at least as early as a few weeks ago) that there were going to be first 1, then 3, then 5, then 6 Ri3Ds this year. They saw the effect just one had in 2013. It significantly raised the floor of the competition, but it caused a fair bit of limiting to the diversity of designs. Having 6 Ri3Ds in 2014, we're going to have 6 good examples, made by teams of people with several world championships and countless regional wins under their collective belts. Those 6 robots will likely show us most of the major design themes 2014 robots will have. I can see how the GDC would see that as a negative thing, and try to do something about it.

Doing something like a surprise game element released AFTER the Ri3Ds are done would be a way to restore some of that unique design challenge without diminishing the beneficial effects that the Ri3Ds have.

[BBray_T1296]

It just seems incredibly strange that half the game name is a complete lie

[Oblarg]

Originally Posted by BBray_T1296

It just seems incredibly strange that half the game name is a complete lie

Maybe the secret post-Ri3D twist is that your robot has to be a helicopter.

[antibody]

At first I was thinking this was just a conspiracy theory cooked up by those veterans who were disappointed that the game was forcing them to collaborate with other teams.

However.... the more I read the other comments, the more I'm open to the possibility that FRC could change things up mid-build season. The one factor that gives me pause is the proliferation of the Ri3Ds this year. If FIRST is looking to force more innovative approaches, introducing an end-game mid-way would be a way to do that.

One other point that hasn't been mentioned yet is that changing requirements mid-stream is extremely common in the real-world. It is pretty much how most of the software projects I've worked on pan out. It is very good skill to learn how to adapt and improvise. Frustrating -- you bet. But it can also be extremely rewarding when the team pulls it together at the last minute.

ant

[Rynocorn]

Originally Posted by BBray_T1296

It just seems incredibly strange that half the game name is a complete lie

You could say a lot of the names are lies though... I mean rebound rumble didn't really have a lot of rebounding or surprise earthquakes. And breakaway means nothing ( to my knowledge ) so I think the same is just catchy.

[Grim Tuesday]

Originally Posted by Rynocorn

You could say a lot of the names are lies though... I mean rebound rumble didn't really have a lot of rebounding or surprise earthquakes. And breakaway means nothing ( to my knowledge ) so I think the same is just catchy.

I always thought the rebound was a basketball doing a rebound(didn't happen but fit the theme), the rumble was the movement of the bridge. Breakaway fits soccer in the same way that rebound fit basketball- it's a term from the sport but not in the FRC game really.

There is no sport to pull aerial from and doesn't really seem to be a major part of the game.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by Racer26

Or there's a climbing based end-game using the seemingly over-built truss that they plan to release after Ri3D's have done their thing but early enough in build to not screw people up too bad.

"Yeah, it'll completely change game strategies and add a whole new system to design, but it won't be THAT bad. It's not like anyone will be done with their strategy rundown and robot capabilities requirements by then, right? It'll be exciting for them to have to do that all over again after we change the game on them!"

Honestly, I think everyone in this thread should back away from the caffeine, get some sleep, and ask themselves tomorrow if they really think the above is something the GDC would actually say.

[Racer26]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

"Yeah, it'll completely change game strategies and add a whole new system to design, but it won't be THAT bad. It's not like anyone will be done with their strategy rundown and robot capabilities requirements by then, right? It'll be exciting for them to have to do that all over again after we change the game on them!"

Honestly, I think everyone in this thread should back away from the caffeine, get some sleep, and ask themselves tomorrow if they really think the above is something the GDC would actually say.

If you asked the GDC two years ago if they thought someone could design and build robots to play their games effectively in 72 hours, they'd have probably told you that you were crazy.

I think you're being seriously naive if you don't think the GDC would do something to combat the effect that Ri3D's have on the robots we see at competition.

EDIT: Just to be clear, I don't necessarily think this will happen. I think its a significant possibility. There have been enough clues, things that seem just a little out of place. Maybe the changing game hint was intentional. That truss is way stronger than it needs to be for its stated purpose. "Aerial" Assist having essentially no "Aerial" component. The first FIRST game in 14+ years to be devoid of an endgame. Aerial Assist as is, the minimum competitive robot, and the elite competitive robot are very similar in design.

[Oblarg]

Originally Posted by Racer26

I think you're being seriously naive if you don't think the GDC would do something to combat the effect that Ri3D's have on the robots we see at competition.

Not if they, like a significant portion of the FRC community, view that effect as one of the best things to happen to FRC in recent memory.

[Racer26]

Originally Posted by Oblarg

Not if they, like a significant portion of the FRC community, view that effect as one of the best things to happen to FRC in recent memory.

I'm not saying that the raising the floor of competition effect is a bad thing at all. Of course that part of the Ri3D effect is excellent, and should be encouraged.

Ultimate Ascent's game design contributed, and I think Ri3D exacerbated, a limited diversity in 2013 robot designs. I think this is a negative thing.

Changing the game after kickoff would be one way for them to attempt to bring some diversity back, as some teams will choose to not attempt to change their design, while some will.

[1086VEX]

The fact that you have to go back to 1998 before you hit a game that didn't feature an endgame makes me think this is easily a possibility. FIRST is all about replicating a realistic engineering environment and what better way to do that than with a last minute wrench in the system.

[Oblarg]

Originally Posted by 1086VEX

The fact that you have to go back to 1998 before you hit a game that didn't feature an endgame makes me think this is easily a possibility. FIRST is all about replicating a realistic engineering environment and what better way to do that than with a last minute wrench in the system.

The "endgame" in '08 was almost nonexistent (there was no special "finale period," and it netted you a completely negligible number of points).

[Racer26]

Originally Posted by Oblarg

The "endgame" in '08 was almost nonexistent (there was no special "finale period," and it netted you a completely negligible number of points).

Touche.

For those that weren't around:

In 2008, throwing a TRACKBALL over the OVERPASS (HURDLING) was worth 10 pts. The endgame bonus was 12 points for a TRACKBALL being ON the OVERPASS at the end of the MATCH.

In practice, teams just tried firing from a little further back than their usual shooting spot, and hoped it landed on top for the bonus 2 points, but weren't too bothered if instead they scored a HURDLE.

[1086VEX]

Originally Posted by Oblarg

The "endgame" in '08 was almost nonexistent (there was no special "finale period," and it netted you a completely negligible number of points).

And yet there was still one(I said endgames in general not good endgames). the last game where it was "score, score, score till the clock ran out" game was '98.

[Oblarg]

Originally Posted by 1086VEX

And yet there was still one(I said endgames in general not good endgames). the last game where it was "score, score, score till the clock ran out" game was '98.

Pragmatically, though, the endgame has not universally been been an important part of FRC for any significant period of time. I don't think it's all that unbelievable that they decided to do a game without one.