Why does everyone hate this game so much?

[eddie12390]

Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman

And can we PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE aggressively signal pinning counts (provided you even bother to start counting) like they do in Canada?

At least at Buckeye, the refereeing was extremely good in this sense. The referees were very clear when a pinning count was starting and what the current count was and they also showed when the pinning had ended with an easily visible sweep of their arms.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by eddie12390

At least at Buckeye, the refereeing was extremely good in this sense. The referees were very clear when a pinning count was starting and what the current count was and they also showed when the pinning had ended with an easily visible sweep of their arms.

Same at Tech Valley--it was very, very obvious when a pin count was ongoing, and when it had been called off.

I don't think they were being called off correctly--six feet for three seconds--but it was at least clear.

[RallyJeff]

Originally Posted by George Nishimura

(My personal grievance is that the human player zones have a back line - ie they are too small).

Keep in mind that G39 this year takes a different approach from the "stepping out of bounds" rules of past years.

In previous seasons, teams weren't allowed to touch the floor outside their alliance station. This year, the foul is for losing contact with your alliance station/HP area.

This means that if you feel you need to be further away from the guard rail or safety zone to avoid G40 tech fouls, you can put your back foot outside the HP area legally. Just be careful to maintain contact with the HP area with your front foot.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by MrTechCenter

For one thing, if you have an alliance partner that is incapable of possessing a ball, is dead on the field, or does not show up for a match you are then at a huge disadvantage because you cannot get three assists and those 10 extra points per cycle that the opposing alliance might be able to get, AND it makes it easier for the opposing alliance to play defense on yours if you only have two scoring robots, because they'll have to exchange the ball somewhere.

The penalty for not having a third robot is 20 points--that third assist, so the margin is actually doubled...

[tsaksa]

I for one do NOT hate this years game. In fact I love it. Every year the game is a compromise in some ways with both pros and cons. This year there seems to have more potential for inconsistent application of fouls, and potential pedestal delays and other frustrations on the field. I am sure that some of the issues with this years game are particularly concerning to some of the most elite teams who plan carefully, and depend on consistency. However, this years game also seems to offer a lot to offset some of those shortcomings. Here is why I particularly like this years game.

1. It is very exciting to watch. With high point swings, and large easy to follow game pieces, there have been some really thrilling games to watch.

2. The game is at least playable by a team with limited funding. This year it is much easier for small or disadvantaged teams to at least "show up" for the game, and compete at a modestly competitive level.

3. Cooperation is rewarded much more this year, and I have seen many more examples of cooperation on the field this year than on most other recent years.

4. Autonomous mode scoring is more obtainable this year, and I have seen a higher percentage of robots perform at least basic autonomous scoring this year.

These are just opinions. I do not have data to support any of this, but that was my impression of game so far.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by billylo

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.

I agree with this sentiment. Other than the disproportionate foul points, I think this game gets an important aspect that can enhance the FIRST experience across all teams. It requires cooperation across the entire alliance to succeed. Unfortunately the competition has been dominated by power teams, even to the extent that there's a thread about the "ethics of saying 'no'". This game gets all of the teams back into the action. I think that the game could be better designed, and even Ultimate Ascent could have given even more incentives to alliance play (e.g., more points for FCS and rebound collected shots, and more allowance for blocking FCS to require counterdefense.) But that shouldn't take away from the aim of the GDC.

That said, the lack of design and build experience by the newer teams is highlighted in this game. A disabled or unavailable robot creates a 20 point per cycle penalty. That's unfair to the other two alliance members who have absolutely NO control over that aspect--it's even worse than a 50 point technical. FIRST made that worse this year by pursuing a strong team recruitment effort, particularly in California and Michigan (which I applaud hugely!) The result is even MORE inexperienced teams. From my analysis of the OPRs, it appears that the spread between teams has increased this year compared to 2013 and 2013 (which had very similar year to year spreads).

The answer is requires a thred-fold strategy (which we plan to implement the our part locally here in the Sacramento Valley).

1) FIRST needs to announce in September, long before Kickoff, that it is planning a game that requires robot interaction with bonus points. This gives all teams a signal that they must rely on their alliance members much more than in the past. The GDC need not reveal anything more so teams are not going to get a jump on design.

2) FIRST needs to provide a list of newest teams (including prospects) to other teams in the region so that the older teams know who they need to contact for step 3). FIRST should try to finalize this list by the end of November.

3) The more experienced teams should start in September to visit the newest teams, both this year's and last year's rookies to start, to explain how they design for different game strategies, including focusing on specific, manageable tasks at the outset, and to train these teams in building robust, reliable robots. And guess what? This program both enhances the FIRST experience AND achieves some of the most important educational objectives of FIRST. It also builds community by bringing together the best teams (which aren't always viewed in the best light) with the newest teams.

FIRST could take this a step further by assigning the top teams a number of new teams to mentor, e.g., 3-5, and start the assignments based on world ranked order. Participating could become a requirement for FIRST membership. Many top teams do this, but it would formalize the process and ease finding the newest teams. FIRST could even create the ability to have "superalliances" that some how play into regional rankings and world championships qualifications.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by GBK

As far as a ball landing in an opponents robot, the rules are very clear about that and even give a warning that you should design your bot so it can not end up with a ball it did not intend to get.

You can't design for BOTH avoiding inadvertant capture AND truss catching. Even our robot with dual sided intakes that can catch a ball cannot not 100% guarantee avoiding a well placed bounce or rebound. We haven't incurred it, but this one rule could be a hazard for teams trying to play what is supposed to be the highlight reel moment of the game.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

At higher levels some defense started to occur but, as evidenced by the world champs, the optimal alliance involved 3 robots running and gunning.

Based on our experience in 2013, the optimal alliance was an FCS with a counterdefense robot and a ground pickup for rebounds. Watch SF 1-1 on Einstein to see that in action. Our robot went dead in SF 1-2 (our fault) so it's hard to prove that point, however this required TEAM strategy, not individual robot performance.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by George Nishimura

But the depth of gameplay was quite shallow. The rules reduced 90% of robots to play one strategy: cycle + 10pt hang.

Aerial Assist is a lot braver. It wants to be dynamic and versatile. It wants more teams to think, talk and coordinate before and during a match (at least more than picking which feeder station to use). It wants to be more like a real team sport. Most teams sports have only one game-piece in play at a time as they cater for both defense and offense. That's what I believe Aerial Assist is trying to do.

I'm reminded of a quote from "The Next Iron Chef": "If a dish is creative, but a failure, is it creative, or is it a failure?"

While there's something to be said for a brave, challenging game design with complex strategies that really makes teams think, there's also something to be said for a more straightforward game that lets teams succeed and have fun without throwing up a ton of arbitrary obstacles and gotchas. 2001's 4-v-0 game was probably one of the most out there game designs in FRC history, and it was pretty frustrating and not incredibly fun to watch, especially in the finals.

Also, I feel it necessary to point out that team sports have had decades to work out rules that allow for an even balance of offense and defense with a single scoring object. Heck, it took professional basketball 8 years to come up with the shot clock to make sure games kept moving. With a new game design every year, the GDC doesn't have a lot of time to tweak and twiddle to balance the game. Teams are happiest when they get it right out of the gate and don't have to make large rule changes in the middle of the competition season. I'm pretty sure simpler, less strategically complex games vastly simplify the balancing process and increase the likelihood of getting it right to start with.

[Kevin Leonard]

Originally Posted by George Nishimura

But the depth of gameplay was quite shallow. The rules reduced 90% of robots to play one strategy: cycle + 10pt hang.

Aerial Assist is a lot braver. It wants to be dynamic and versatile. It wants more teams to think, talk and coordinate before and during a match (at least more than picking which feeder station to use). It wants to be more like a real team sport. Most teams sports have only one game-piece in play at a time as they cater for both defense and offense. That's what I believe Aerial Assist is trying to do.

There are two veins of criticism: criticism of the intent and criticism of the execution. Ultimate Ascent was executed very well, partially because the intent was simpler to execute. But as a fan of team sports, I personally welcome the direction the GDC are trying to take.

But what Ultimate Ascent did well, that I don't believe Aerial Assist is doing well, is incentivize teams for creative engineering.
In UA, teams who built a floor pickup machine or a climber were rewarded with different ways to play teleop, and more auto/climb points. These were difficult tasks to accomplish. Teams were rewarded for figuring out how to full-court shoot, and that it was even a valid strategy!
Aerial assist tries to reward strategy and different robot designs, except it fails. It wants robots to be specialized in catching, trussing, and high goal shooting, but since all three tasks can be performed by one robot, it fails to do so.
Additionally, in Ultimate Ascent, all three teams could try to score simultaneously, which decreased the effectiveness of defense and the prevalence of defense greatly (except on full-court shooters). Ultimate Ascent also had passing between robots, where full-court shooters would pass to floor-pickup machines, but it wasn't forced by game design that those frisbees were worth more points- it just happened organically.

And so in some ways, in terms of general game design, I love this game, in other ways I'm quite disappointed.
Aerial Assist is like eating salad after your ice cream. The Ultimate Ascent flavored ice cream was delicious, what's next? A salad?!?! Awwww...
(salads are good but not in comparison to ice cream. Duh )

[coalhot]

It's almost like the GDC should have put the truss on the floor as a barrier to get over. Less high speed, full field charging by robots, and different (maybe more interesting) gameplay. See 2012, just more of a challenge to cross the field.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by coalhot

It's almost like the GDC should have put the truss on the floor as a barrier to get over. Less high speed, full field charging by robots, and different (maybe more interesting) gameplay. See 2012, just more of a challenge to cross the field.

The last two comments make me wonder if the truss should have been replaced with a tunnel down low or a maze up high. Both would have been different tasks that high goal shooting.

[KevinG]

I don't hate the game, but I agree it's severely lacking relative to other experiences. My experience was as a student from 99-01 and then a mentor in 2013 and this year, so I wouldn't say I have enough knowledge to declare any particular year the "best" game. That said I feel like this year's system is flawed in a few ways.

There are positives about this game. For starters it's exciting to watch as a spectator. Having a single game piece for either team makes it easier to follow the action and get excited on a score. The presence of strategy is also big; a team that can't necessarily score well but is good on defense with a powerful drive train can still contribute. This opens up the game to weaker teams, which I think is important. The team I mentor is not well funded or equipped so it's nice to have a chance to compete.

That said there are obvious negatives as well. The foul situation is an obvious one. Rules are intended to shape behavior, penalty-based rules especially so, and good rules have three aspects. They're easy to understand, they're easy to enforce, and the consequence of the rule is equivalent to the importance of the action. An example of a good rule (from a behavior standpoint) is the rule that a ball is scored when it passes through a goal. It's easy to understand, it's easy to enforce (ball enters the goal, points are scored), and the consequence (in this case the points) reflects the importance of the action.

Many of the fouls, especially technical fouls, are in my opinion poorly designed from a rules perspective. Several rules are hard to understand, as evidenced by the sheer amount of debate going on here as well as by the judges. Enforcement of those rules is also difficult and is heavily dependent on the interpretation of the referee. And finally the consequences are, in my opinion, way out of line relative to the importance of the action. Scores over 200 points are exceedingly rare, yet a technical foul is worth 50 points. That's a massive penalty.

[Tmeziere]

Compared to other years the field setup is somewhat boring. No obstacles and also no end game. I think is just because this year is so much different people are having trouble getting used to it. I personally like this game but see a few flaws in it also.

[nuclearnerd]

Originally Posted by KGenson

Having a single game piece for either team makes it easier to follow the action and get excited on a score. The presence of strategy is also big; a team that can't necessarily score well but is good on defense with a powerful drive train can still contribute. This opens up the game to weaker teams, which I think is important. The team I mentor is not well funded or equipped so it's nice to have a chance to compete.

That said there are obvious negatives as well. The foul situation is an obvious one. Rules are intended to shape behavior, penalty-based rules especially so, and good rules have three aspects. They're easy to understand, they're easy to enforce, and the consequence of the rule is equivalent to the importance of the action..

Well said. I support the idea of fewer game pieces and more defense for the reasons you list (more exciting game, better use of weaker teams), but we need to overhaul the foul rules so that playing defense in future games isn't a GIANT MINEFIELD of devastating and yet hard to predict foul penalties!