The Not So-Secret Secret End-Game

[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.

[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.

[Justin Shelley]

Originally Posted by Caio

Don't know if this has been mentioned, but we just started watching the kickoff video again.

It starts with:
"They thought X, they got Y" themes with previous inventions.

Game hint:
"Sorry, we made a mistake. These numbers give the same result but look different and are formatted differently"

Maybe, a completely different challenge, solvable by the same robot.

Food for thought.

THIS!! I am more inclined to believe this then a change to the current game that would require new mechanisms.

[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.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by Racer26

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.

Last point then I'm out of this for good. Say the GDC releases a brand new endgame after all the Ri3Ds are done. What exactly do you think is going to happen then? You think ALL the Ri3D teams are going to throw up their hands and say "You think we're going to spend any MORE days showing people how to meet this new challenge?". Nope, you're just going to get bonus material as several of the Ri3D teams go back for seconds. It's not like they're contractually limited to only 3 days of posting youtube videos or something.

[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.

[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.

[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

[Peragore]

Originally Posted by Caio

Don't know if this has been mentioned, but we just started watching the kickoff video again.

It starts with:
"They thought X, they got Y" themes with previous inventions.

Game hint:
"Sorry, we made a mistake. These numbers give the same result but look different and are formatted differently"

Maybe, a completely different challenge, solvable by the same robot.

Food for thought.

Or they may not change the game up enough to actually require a large change of the robot. The game is so generic this year that you are almost required to build a robot that is a jack of all trades. That would allow GDC to change most game rules without severely punishing teams. That all ties back to the build for one thing, get another that ad talked about. We are building for one game, but are forced to build in such a generic way that it will work for the real game revealed later.

Just a thought

[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.

[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

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.

[pilum40]

Originally Posted by mrnoble

I also disagree with this statement. There are a huge number of ways to make a robot that can extend up to 20" outside it's perimeter pick up, pass, catch, hold, and shoot a relatively small and light ball like the one we have. Video of past games (especially 2008, as was previously mentioned) will be extremely enlightening, and hopefully motivating.

I'm just a dumb teacher-coach but working with my team today, It seems as if the "truss" is like a destractor I would use in a multiple-guess question. Please bear with me if I completely illustrate the obvious, it is late and I'm an old guy. After re-reading the manual and watching the game animation over and over, the truss is not the focus of play regardless of the conspiracy comments above. The game is not focused (currently) upon just shooting the ball. What the game is focused on are several different ideas (in my opinion):
1. FIRST needs to keep growing. Rookie teams are the lifeblood of FRC. The autonomous +5 points for just getting from the starting zone to the end zone gives rookie teams a success. Your team and my team will find a way to move, shoot and score in the "hot zone" during auto. We kicked around camera, lazy susan turret and are working on several ideas for a shooter. Again, this part of the game buoys up the rookie teams giving them points for moving. Judging from our own team's experience, just getting the robot to move and do SOMETHING in auto. was a major accomplishment given the relative STEM inexperience and lack of longer term STEM systems in our school. One man's opinion only.

2. The multiple passing point system is an extension of the cooperative game from 2012. It is also something that FIRST has been gradually working on since we've been "in the game". The biggest obstacles for us are deciding how we will pass the ball and if we will get multiple points for 2-3 passing and concentrate on the lower versus upper shooting targets. Adding an elevator system is another system that has the potential of breaking down during the game and complicates both construction, and driver training. Our jury's still out but as of this afternoon, we want to be consistent enough to score and consistent enough to add to the team aspects of this game. Flame me if you want. I've got big shoulders and certainly can learn from all responses.

As posted above, the truss IS a destractor only unless FIRST changes the rules and offers points for doing more with it. 10 points for popping the ball over the bar is not something we want to be trying to do during the shortened game time. It would be cool, and we'll probably build a prototype to gather and shoot. Again, it is consistency of scoring points and team work that we want to sharpen up. For us it's about doing the picking in the finals rather than getting picked.

Fancy engineering is great if you've got the facilities and financial backing. Keeping it simple and to the goals of the game is how smaller, less funded teams operate. I'm thinking FIRST may have had this in mind too. This game is not as complicated as our first game in 2010. That's a good thing. As a teacher, I want my students to work the problem rather than having the problem work them. Great thread though....I'm quite interested to see how y'all work the problem, if you deal with the truss, or just stay the course, keep it real and score lots of points in partnership with others on the course.

Again...I am NOT an engineer but a mere AP Human Geo, AP Government, AP Economics instructor. I truly want to get your thoughts on this. Your thoughts can only make all of our teams better. See some of y'all at the Dallas Regional?

Steve Miller
Team 3355-Purple Vipers