Why does everyone hate this game so much?

[Jay O'Donnell]

The only problem I have with this game is having to rely on your alliance partners in quals so much. There were multiple instances at UNH where we shot the ball over the truss to our partners, who then proceeded to fail at scoring the ball for the whole match but not let us come in to just get the job done. We had one of the worst schedules I've ever seen and went 4-7-1 because of it, but were still good enough to be picked by the 4 seed in the first round.

[cglrcng]

The largest problem of all is the subjectiveness of the calls and the sheer total number and types of penalties ref's are forced to call by the original game design. (The fixes have been the best things yet, some good, some not really helping, but all have improved the game so far as far as making it more suit the actual as designed mission IMHO....and I absolutely usually hate rules tinkering as a whole).

But, that is a whole different set of issues.....Can you actually compare teams that competed across the board (game play wise, across the entire season, based on any reasonable scoring metric), from Week #1 through Week #4 and further beyond to the last match on Einstein? No, not this year....You cannot and should not (you would have to look at each task each robot can perform & complete, and you will not see that on ANY RESULTS SHEET this year as a whole. Just too many changes so far.

Case in point, posession of an opponents ball last week was a 50 point penalty against and scored as for the offended alliance and added to their score....Yesterday, it was 20 points added toward an offended alliances score (that wouldn't have changed who won or lost in the match I am personally comparing and thinking about, but would / could, many others). And I actually witnessed a called pinning penalty yesterday w/ a completed 2 different sets of full call flag action, that was never even later added to the score, I've assumed, because the offended alliance was a hundred points ahead in an elimination match...They didn't even have the usual (and there were many), end of match ref conference that particular match, because it was evident which alliance had won the match. (So those points were never even added to the ending score).

So IMHO, after all the rules tinkering that this game design has received so far, it is getting much closer to what I personally "think" the GDC had in mind, you will still need to compare all the games played each week to one another, and not any week against any other week, and definitely not across the spectrum of the season as a whole. (If you measure it that way - across the whole season,...You will be very far off on the actual cut). And your ending pcs. just won't fit. That is why most of the adults dislike the game....And why (I believe), most of the students responses, as seen here, they actually love this game.....Now!

By lifetimes of experience, most adults simply dislike change or rules tinkering causing constant change. Most of the students have yet to gain that adult disavantage, and that helps them to adapt quicker and much more easily.

But, we adults can anticipate through having those previous life experiences, what disappointment can and WILL happen when they add those huge subjective penalty points after the matches are completed, and apparent wins can turn to actual losses, and all the effort seemingly just goes up in smoke like a shorted motor. And the "magic" is released in an instant due to subjectiveness of a single action that nobody seemingly has control of. The Ref's are human and stuck in the middle of a human / robot game officiating...It is NOT their fault. PERIOD.

What we will see (I hope and already have seen the effect of the changes take effect), at the Championships, and eventually on that Einstein Field that every FRC Team aspires to play on, will be a very different game than the one we all read that thick rulebook in the first week of January and since, and was set our minds eye then, to really be. It will be a great game to watch if played as designed. And I personally saw some of that yesterday.

It can be an amazing game, but it takes tinkering to get the intended result, and that is why many of us actually disliked (and some may still highly), it to begin with.

I will not make this book any longer. I have added my 2 cents and it is now up to $3.50 by now or $125.00 at least. I congratulate the GDC on getting much closer in Week #4 to their intended vision, but fear there is still a long way to go.

The secret to getting the teams to be more offensive and less defensive is located in a financial reward (IE: As was offered at the AZ Regionals by the Event Sponsor of $500.00 off next years event fee, for all teams involved in both alliances of any 2 alliances, that exceeded 200 points each side). That act culminated in a final match (and true coopertition all around), that rivaled what we saw in another Regional ending match yesterday (Waterloo comes to mind), too. (Last year the offer by the sponsor was all 6 robots hanging legally in any match, which was completed many times). The task was not completed this year in AZ, but they came quite close in the final match.

Watching teams back completely off of the defensive angle on the most part (working together to attempt to rise to another different challenge not in that all important book), and play a really fast paced, and fairly clean offensive only game of Aerial Assist, showed just how great this game can be, how fast paced and artful it can be, and exactly how great each of the participating robots and team members on both sides, can really be, if not hindered by each other. And those matches were cleanly done too, thereby keeping those subjective calls pretty much in the bag. (But, that was a very special case).

I'd bet the Ref's. felt more at ease too in not having to end the event by announcing ANY penalties also.

If you students enjoy this game...Just go play it. (Do not pay attention to how us old foggies feel about it...As we aren't the ones playing)...Enjoy yourselves...You have earned that. But, also understand and accept the associated disappointments too....And, that there will be many of those. So, expect them and prepare for them....And, when they seem subjective to you, understand why some of us expected that and complained about this particular game. Go w/ the flow.

Congrat's to all who played this Week #4....And to all the WINNERS! And Good Luck to Week #5 players.

[BigJ]

(IE: As was offered at the AZ Regionals by the Event Sponsor of $500.00 off next years event fee, for all teams involved in both alliances of any 2 alliances, that exceeded 200 points each side)

There was a monetary incentive for teams to not play defense?...

That seems really sketchy.

[cgmv123]

Originally Posted by BigJ

There was a monetary incentive for teams to not play defense?...

That seems really sketchy.

This. Defense is a perfectly valid part of the game, and pay for performance should never be a part of FIRST.

[jeremylee]

Originally Posted by Ipiano

I think we have a case of referee subjectivity

I appreciate your perspective and agree with everything being subjective.

I remember seeing you guys getting entangled with 93 and a penalty being called on 93 just after they pulled away seeing the ref waive the flag. I recall you being dead also, but I guess for some reason I thought both of these occurred at the same time in the 2nd match (the redo one). I will have to watch some replays when they are available before I speak any further.

For isolation, yes you are correct on the rule I was referencing, and I agree it's very subjective along with many of the other rules.

Either way, no hard feelings. This is a perfect example of the game this year, trying to figure out what exactly was called on who for doing what.

[magnets]

Originally Posted by BigJ

There was a monetary incentive for teams to not play defense?...

That seems really sketchy.

That's not right at all. First of all, money for performing well is a bad thing, but defense is a perfectly fine thing to do. That's like bribing a team to play the game a way that some random person thinks is right. This brings back bad memories of agreements in 2003.

[cstelter]

I put our video of Wisconsin Regional Quarter Final 2 match 3 on You Tube: http://youtu.be/sbJUjhtlHLs. Unfortunately the student doing the recording turned off the video before they announced the reason for the fouls. But my recollection was 50 for inside frame perimeter causing damage plus possession. Blue also benefited from a 20 pt foul and I can't recall that either (one instance of ramming maybe??)

3018 was pretty clearly trying to minimize contact with 93 while still playing effective defense to keep them away from the action. No ramming involved that I can see. 93 actuates their arm while inside our perimeter extending the entanglement, but I sincerely doubt that was the intent. It's just unfortunate that we could not disconnect without the radio being disconnected, or that would have probably only been 20 point foul, and we could have finished playing the match.

I must admit I'm still baffled about the 50 point possession foul. Our video doesn't show all the action going on in the lower left corner of the screen. But I'm unconvinced that is where the possession foul occurred.

The only only thing that appears to be close to possession that I can see would be the trapping part of G12 (although the ball was never against a robot or a game piece). However, there are 3 times throughout the match where 706 is trying to get to the red ball but one or more blue robots are in between them and the ball preventing any red robots from getting the ball. Given the 'G12 Intent' clause, perhaps this is what led to the possession foul for the other 50 points.

I don't think it could have possibly been called for the inconsequential contact of 93 nearly catching the one truss catch.

[cglrcng]

Originally Posted by Max Boord

I forgot the exact number but the its around 5 times.

Arial Assault is a broken game and, with a plethora of new rules updates the GDC seems addicted to making it worse. Here the 12 step program:

1. Lower all human player penalties to regular fouls.
2. Stop making strategy changing rules updates the day regionals start.
3. Get an apple I or comadore 64 for field timing so the hot goals turn on at the right time.
4. See #3 and replace hot goal with robots being enabled and disabled.
5. Make the inbound an assist. No more having to hold the ball for half an hour to get the 1st assist.
6. Develop a system of immediate rematches for when things go wrong.
7. Create a proper inspection protocol for eliminations.
8. Remove refs ability to retroactively DQ a team or alliance due to an inspectors mistake.
9. Remove penalties that hurt offensive plays under heavy defense.
10. Make ball tracking and assist crediting ether all electronic or the job of 1 ref per alliance.
11. Remove rules that can not be enforced evenly throughout different events.
12. Inject some common sense into penalty judgement.

Wow!.......Now that would make this particular game on Einstein in just a few weeks time, a "completely different game", than was released in January. (If we need a 12 point program to fix it, we need to also go to rehab. here in AZ for a few weeks (like many politicians who fall from grace seem to do lately), and the season will never become a great memory for the Senior and other Students)....But, they certainly could learn a whole lot about life in the process. Lol.

Smirk. SRY. (Personally, I hope they "fixed the game issues" about as much as they are going to.....But, I fear that is not the case, since some still believe changes -some wholesale changes, are still necessary. It sure looked cleaner to me yesterday streaming many regionals from the comfort of my home.

Also TY FIRST, for getting the AZ Reg. "stats link" fixed late Friday night...My blood pressure was much less elevated yesterday due to solely that fact. To see those stats & scores posted too made a world of difference.
_________________________________
Thanks also to Falcon Robotics (and others), for the high quality full field Q-vids Friday (that helped me tremendously, though without the actual scores included it was really tough to keep track...Though, I also know doing it by phone had to be very hard to add those too). I hope you also did the elims., and will be posting those on YouTube in the same place too...I know you were plenty busy...Congrat's. on that big Win. I personally know your competitors, fully enjoyed it right down to the bitter & great tasting end.
__________________________________
Those elims., & the finals were absolutely fantastic to watch. (The smile on my son's face at 1:30 AM this morning (when they arrived home), will be a very long lasting memory, for both of us)...And his banner say's Regional Finalist this time instead of Regional Winner. In 4 years of actual building, driving, programming, and every other facet of the FIRST experience he has been immersed in throughout his 4 years of High School, he has tasted both of those feelings, and utter absolute defeat also. He knows the difference by now). He's proud of their acheivements...and there is still the rest of the season to go, and to look forward to. I can tell he is in the "I Love This Game! camp." He said so this morning. I'm slowly being won over.

So, ergo, the game does work GDC! That much I can tell you. You can see it in their sparkling eyes. Even when they eventually lose in the end...They (and we), are all WINNERS! At least they played the game, as some never actually get a chance to do.

Knowing you played your best, against the very best (especially against long rules odds, w/ some odd things occurring too at the same time, and you just battled on w/ pure GP)......That makes that sparkle in the eyes truly & easily show.

I was proud of watching the level of play yesterday across all of the Regions and Districts...I was more proud of that level of play personally involved w/ a team and as a parent of a direct participant, when I later found out this morning, that in the middle of all that great action yesterday, a driver station laptop (the 6th seed Alliance Captain's....Yes, OURS), was dropped & the screen was accidentally broken w/ the drivers station still up during qualifying, but through a totally unviewable white & rainbow colored screen. (I was told only by text that there was "an issue," not ever explained to, what that "very serious issue" was, even when I texted "what system?", I was "properly just ignored"....The "issue" was "being handled", and that, was all I needed to know).

Then for them, to come back from that major issue (all I knew watching the stream is they arrived at the next and last 2 of their scheduled Q-Matches and played very well...looked like a minor issue easily resolved to me, business as usual, doing what they can do w/ the robot they designed and built, can accomplish, and trying things they did not even design for specifically, and battle on like nothing ever happened, and do that well, was just amazing. Good Job.

My personal thanks goes out to ALL that helped concerning the curing of that particular serious issue, as you ALL embody GP. (Strictly my fault...except that I did not drop it...But, then again, you can't drop it, if you don't take the long chance of actually carrying and using it, high pressure, to say the least is, a robot drivers job). My personal fault because, I always sneak the backup laptop puter down w/ us, even if others do not actually think we will ever need it...But I didn't go, so it wasn't ready to just slap on that drivers station in a single minute, all ready & charged and therefore, ready to go...issue resolved).

Lastly, (watch the vids of both the AZ and the Waterloo Regionals, all of them, but especially the Final Matches)....And you just may see IMHO, the game the GDC attempted to design all of a sudden appear out of nowhere. At least that's what I think I saw.

That wasn't Battle Bots like we have seen earlier...Those eliminations were pure art and flow, showcasing what only FIRST Robotics can be. Winning isn't everything, playing is. It isn't ALL about the robot, or ALL about the specific game designed in less than a year.

STEM turned into artful accomplishment. Only FIRST provides that experience to our children. TY FIRST, and TY to all those daring officiants always, but, especially this year.

[DarrinMunter]

The other foul, from what I know (I had to go back to the pit to find out why we couldn't launch the last ball) - that foul had something to do with the start of the match, not gameplay.

The fouls I said before, happen during seeding matches. - Which gave us the Yellow Card.

[sircedric4]

I dislike this game for two simple reasons.

A single game piece which causes animosity between what should be alliance members. Teams are justified in wanting to play the game with the robots they spent $4000 on and many many evenings working on. Half the teams out there are having to not play offense for fear of losing the game. Now they cant even play defense for fear of incurring penalties.

The other reason is the number of subjective penalties in this game and how punishing they are. On the score and the overworked refs. Good luck getting the volunteers to want to ref again when the refs go through the emotional ringer after every match.

FIRST,I know it is about inspiration and not the robots but you cant do away with the game and robots completely and expect to keep growing. Its like we got an entire new GDC that has never played a game before especially after the complete success of the last few years. What happened?

[Christopher149]

Caution, biased opinion of first-time finalist team.

At our first event, I was annoyed at the fouls, which (amongst other issues) effectively caused our loss in QFs. After our second event, I have to say I really like playing this game, and it can be fun to watch (at least for an insider) when the robots are getting into a groove.

[cglrcng]

Originally Posted by magnets

That's not right at all. First of all, money for performing well is a bad thing, but defense is a perfectly fine thing to do. That's like bribing a team to play the game a way that some random person thinks is right. This brings back bad memories of agreements in 2003.

It was announced yesterday in full view and voice to all in AZ (and over the stream to the world watching), that our specific team was the original responsible party many years ago, for the very first (publicly known), incidence of collaberation between teams (and that it was also very controversial at the time), but that it is VERY accepted today as "a way of naturally just doing business", to be successful across the FIRST community.

And it is!...Teams collaborate often throughout the community, they sometimes build together, or work out of the same lab or shop, they contact one another often, they practice together, they even sometimes plan to compete together in eliminations (oh really! Ahhhh. Eyes wide). Sometimes, even the actual game is designed to force or reward coopertition amongst red/blue opposing alliances. And some teams even have official FIRST Regulation Field Setups purchased for them by their sponsors as I found out recently. Life isn't fair. And it wasn't ever meant to be.

There were no secret financial rewards, the reward was only an, open & publicly announced & published, further personal event sponsor incentive for all the teams to attempt to do their best on the field during the event (To score at least 200 points for each alliance, and it was never actually accomplished), and said VOLUNTARY SPONSOR INCENTIVE was proper, again voluntary, and was offerred to ALL who participated.

It wasn't sketchy. And it acheived the desired results....Though nobody during the event even qualified for the intended reward. So, please put away the tinfoil hat. </;-) (I was only giving a suggestion that will not occur, and is not expected to occur, of how to possibly further to discourage battle bots, and elevate this particular game to it's desired end goal of Humans using Robots designed to accomplish specific tasks, instead of Humans using Robots to keep others from achieving their goals and accomplishing said tasks...the art of defensive strategies).

The FIRST experience is built and run daily on sponsors asking us each to do our best for them (and showcase them in full partnership also), and financial support is traded on to complete that mission using both parts and dollars and tons of other support.

As a side note...Our specific team never collaborates anymore w/ other teams, except on the field of play itself of course, call it hard lessons over the years and now ingrained in our specific 2 digit long time in existance team (and that probably hurts us now more than ever, during this present age of extreme team collaboration that, we may have historically just BTW helped to create during years past...Remember that was very controversial when first introduced)....But, you will not find any debut vids released of our teams robots until it hits the field at the first event (usually Week #4).

Actually, I tried (to personally change our own team culture this year if others were willing, I would have presented it to the team for acceptance or rejection), here during this particular build season. I received no responses whatsoever, except, after another prod post, I received a few of...."Talk to us after the build season." It never happened so, we collaborated onfield again instead of before we reached the field. And it will again in 2 weeks (though the offer is still always open). I realized early on after reading the game rules the very first time, that the teamwork was needed early on for this game to be highly successful is all.

This game needs team collaboration to be highly successful on field....And it shows when it is done well. Those that do collaborate will be highly complimentary to each other, and should be highly successful as the game seems to be designed, as a pure team game, rewarding teams that are more willing to work together. Not so much for teams that will not. (Though the stats will still be kind to them also if outstanding robot design and task completion is there). I have witnessed teams choosing a really high # seeded team...No other game would you usually find that.

Deals are born and made between teams daily, the games are based on playing in an alliance forcing collaboration.....That is not sketchy. That is just downright smart!

Not to be anti-GP...But, to quote you......"First of all, money for performing well is a bad thing...."

Someday, some employer is either going to get a real steal by hiring you as you will perform at top levels without the associated "bad financial reward"...Or, he will be very sorry, because you personally will not perform because of the idea that...."First of all, money for performing well is a bad thing...." (Not trying to pick on you personally please understand...Just look at the statement, and think about it honestly a minute first......OK?)

The capitalist based business world succeeds above all others, mainly because "Money for performing something well, is a GOOD THING!"

Trading labor, time, knowledge, product, and or services for that so bad & evil money, it is the engine that drives our economies worldwide. If you think it doesn't drive the FIRST Community also...Try surviving a single season without those (things you may consider "evil"), and absolutely necessary SUPER Great Sponsor $$$$'s, and many teams do every year. It isn't easy. It's downright nearly impossible at a high level. (The volunteerism provided across the entire community is the VERY important fuel and access, along w/ all those VERY important Sponsor $$$$ engines, providing us the actual technology!)

[MrForbes]

Originally Posted by cgmv123

This. Defense is a perfectly valid part of the game, and pay for performance should never be a part of FIRST.

The offer to pay part of next year's entry fee was made by a FIRST Director, and the offer was using his own money. No teams were able to fulfill the requirements this year.

[magnets]

Originally Posted by cglrcng

It was announced yesterday in full view and voice to all in AZ (and over the stream to the world watching), that our specific team was the original responsible party many years ago, for the very first (publicly known), incidence of collaberation between teams (and that it was also very controversial at the time), but that it is VERY accepted today as "a way of naturally just doing business", to be successful across the FIRST community.

Now that I understand what happened, and realized that it is not FIRST's money being spent, I am very okay with what happened. My 2003 comment referred to a few incidents where teams agreed before a match to not knock over each others stacks, but ended up violating the agreement. This was really controversial because it was totally un-GP, but not illegal. When teams sincerely wanted to make the no stack hitting agreement, it was tough to decide to trust them or not.

[cglrcng]

Originally Posted by billylo

Just returned from Waterloo. I have been reflecting on what the most important thing, the one thing I would put on the feedback form.

Here it is:

It's practically impossible to predict how a game will be played by 50000 smart people, young and the-young at heart. Even if you recruit Neil deGrasse Tyson (as an example) and put him onto the GDC.

So, what can be done to continue growing STEM better through FIRST?

Engage the 50,000 smart people in participating the evolution of a game in structured way. Leverage the competition experience of teams like 254, 469, 33, etc; the less experienced teams; and the rookies and pre-rookies too.

Turn the problem on its head.




Don't fix this game (yes, you heard that from me here... :-) )

Invest our time in enhancing the process of conceiving, designing, testing and deploying the game. Transparency will lead to understanding, engagement will lead to acceptance; and openness will lead to willingness to forget about the imperfect aspects of the system.

This above.....

It wasn't that I didn't like the game (though I anticipated it would become very damaging Battle Bots like, and it did for a period of time, forcing some changes)...It was that I knew I wouldn't like the resulting "fixing that was going to be applied" either to the field elements, or all the rest that would be necessary.

I agreed w/ the above poster weeks ago...Though the GDC took the only route available once many stated how much they didn't like the game, and attempted to, in their way make the game better....It has improved it, and I am now a convert. It is better. Though, if you rely on your scouting or the Stats from week 1, 2, 3, or 4 at the Championships (or compare those stats on a season wide basis)...You just may be sorry you did. As too many changes have taken place in just less than 3 months, and the last 4 weeks. Will there be more to come? Who knows.....But, my personal complaints about the game are over.