Why does everyone hate this game so much?

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by Oblarg

To be fair, nothing in that clip even remotely resembles battlebots. All I saw was unintentional entanglement and resulting (unfortunate and nigh-unavoidable without banning defense) damage. Additionally, throwing around words like "idiocy" is not particularly conducive to the sort of atmosphere required for productive discourse.

Edit: It just occurred to me that I might be mis-parsing your response if you intended that as an example of receiving a penalty while not playing "like battlebots." It's really rather unclear; the sentence directly after indicates you think the reffing against overly-aggressive robots is insufficiently strict, not vice-versa.

Here's an example from this weekend of getting away without a penalty. The event occurs with 90 seconds left:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4rf-6eP4dc

[Oblarg]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

Here's an example from this weekend of getting away without a penalty. The event occurs with 90 seconds left:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4rf-6eP4dc

Was this intentional? The video doesn't show how the robots ended up in that position. If it was, that should be a penalty, yeah.

[Andrew Y.]

this is the consistency problems I have been seeing.

At Peachtree we were given 50 pt technicals for entering another robots frame perimeter...it did not matter if the other robot was damaged, tangled, touched, or even if they initiated contact....entering got us a 50 pt technical. I will admit, there were 2 incidents that I saw that were completely 100% our fault. Seemed like after that everything we did was "intentional"

[blaze8902]

I really don't think the 3rd point makes any sense. The only way that having two lower ranking alliance members would cause your chances at victory to be zero is if they literally could not move.

Let's Look at Smoky Mountain Regional Q89.
Red Alliance:
5022 (Rank at the time was in the 40s.) No Manipulators.
3856 ( Rank at the time was 48.) No Manipulators.
4265 (Rank at the time was ~12 or 14. Can't remember for sure.)
Blue Alliance:
2614 (Rank at the time was 1.)
2856 (Rank at the time was in the 10s)
2856 (Rank at the time was either 30s or 40s, can't remember for sure.) No Manipulators.

What's your prediction for this match? Obviously Blue.
Final score? 105 to 73, Red.
How did this happen?
Every student giving it their all in an effective strategy.

When it comes to fouls, you can't just assume if you're with a fouling team that there isn't anything you can do about it. You have to speak with the team and figure out what the problem is. Only after you've done your best to make sure it doesn't happen in a match can you really say that you couldn't have done anything.

[RallyJeff]

Originally Posted by magnets

There is no consistency between events and matches. On webcasts, I keep hearing the words "technical foul assessed for entering the frame perimeter of a robot". What rule is that? Honestly, when a technical foul is called, a rule should really be cited.

FYI: other head refs may have different systems for this, but the way I normally communicate fouls to the game announcer is to quickly hand them a piece of paper with the rule number, penalty (foul, deactivation, etc.) and the team and alliance who did it. He checks those numbers against a "cheat sheet" with a one-line description of each rule. I've heard plenty of cases where a foul was correctly called during the game, but the game announcer misses some nuance of a rule when announcing it to the crowd. When I hear this, I try to let the game announcer know for next time.

It would be nice if I could spend time discussing each foul in detail with the announcer, but the flow of the tournament usually doesn't allow for this.

[jppcr14]

This game isn't that bad. It's not my favorite but still a good game.

Fouls have always had the potential to drastically change the match outcome, it's just more frequent this year.

This game was designed so that there really can't be one good team to carry an alliance. You need to be cooperative and work together or you won't get very far. While one bot can hurt you, it doesn't guarantee a loss. If you are a decent team just have the weaker robot touch the ball then take it yourselves if you have to.

My team is very strategic and this year we have excelled because we are the way. All in all the season is almost over anyway

[dubiousSwain]

From the perspective of a scouter/mascot:

First of all, I like scouting this game. Our paradigm is "follow the ball", and we have two scouters per alliance. Previous games have been hard too scout due to too many game pieces, but that is probably because our team has very little man power available to be applied to scouting. The game is fun to watch and exciting, if you've read the rules (which I have many times).

As a strategist, I LOVE this game. There is a lot of depth to the field, and several different "classes" of robots, at least in MAR. In order to do well, everyone has to work together, and teams have to know their niche. It makes me happy when a strategy is well executed, even if it isn't the one I came up with. It frustrates me to no end when one robot on our alliance decides to go "lone wolf" and doesn't work as a team.

Basically, it boils down to this. In qualifications, most robots are out for themselves and for rank, so they are more likely to abandon strategies. This is when we get train-wreck matches that look like pee-wee soccer.
In eliminations, its the most intense game I've ever been a part of. (I joined FIRST in the offseason of logomotion)

[BBray_T1296]

What I love about this game is the exciting matches come eliminations

At Oklahoma there were definitely some "better than others" robots, but there were no powerhouse teams and the alliances were very very well balanced.

In 90% of the eliminations, the score was down-to-the-wire, and the near upset of the #8 seed on the #1 seed were the 2 best matches I have ever seen in my life.

While I was actually disappointed with the lack of penalties (you heard it here), the fact that the game was more relaxed made the scores feel earned and the close matches were actually due to real close gameplay, not a free 50 points tying the game at the last second

[FrankJ]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

Here's an example from this weekend of getting away without a penalty. The event occurs with 90 seconds left:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4rf-6eP4dc

That on is on the margins. G27 I think would be the rule in question. It would have to be seen as intentional for that to apply though. The actual entanglement is not shown. It would depend on who was pushing who & if blues appendage was inside its frame perimeter when the entanglement happened, as it looks like it might well have been.

[Oblarg]

Originally Posted by BBray_T1296

What I love about this game is the exciting matches come eliminations

At Oklahoma there were definitely some "better than others" robots, but there were no powerhouse teams and the alliances were very very well balanced.

In 90% of the eliminations, the score was down-to-the-wire, and the near upset of the #8 seed on the #1 seed were the 2 best matches I have ever seen in my life.

While I was actually disappointed with the lack of penalties (you heard it here), the fact that the game was more relaxed made the scores feel earned and the close matches were actually due to real close gameplay, not a free 50 points tying the game at the last second

I've gotta say, the eliminations at Greater DC were probably the most intense thing I've ever experienced at a regional FRC event. The standard of play was absolutely fantastic, and the game allows for so much more strategic depth than previous FRC games.

[Qbot2640]

Originally Posted by Anupam Goli

After Palmetto, my opinion of the game wasn't great, but I wasn't complaining too much yet. Now that Peachtree has passed, my patience with this game and the way its officiated is completely gone.

I won't say that my "patience is completely gone" but I tend to agree...I inspected at Palmetto, and my team attended NC and DC. From one perspective, the gameplay has seemed to degrade throughout the season. It can still be a very exciting game in eliminations, but it is too easy for a match to become a frustrating battle to avoid defense. This is my opinion, of course, but I believe the games are much better when an increasing level of game play is synonymous with increased elegance, finesse, and technical expertise. Too many matches in the elimination rounds become one power house alliance shutting down the offense of the other by blockade. The elimination matches I saw earlier in the season seemed to have quicker, more spectacular scoring cycles...often deciding a match at the buzzer by a two or three assist goal...at the end, there are far fewer of these and many more struggles to break the blockade and score.

[sdcantrell56]

Originally Posted by Andrew Y.

this is the consistency problems I have been seeing.

At Peachtree we were given 50 pt technicals for entering another robots frame perimeter...it did not matter if the other robot was damaged, tangled, touched, or even if they initiated contact....entering got us a 50 pt technical. I will admit, there were 2 incidents that I saw that were completely 100% our fault. Seemed like after that everything we did was "intentional"

Case in point, watch this video and tell me how exactly we were assessed a 50 pt technical at :17 into the video. We are in the process of scoring our missed autonomous ball and being defended against.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/bfyolu2f7...0match%201.AVI

[Oblarg]

Originally Posted by Qbot2640

I won't say that my "patience is completely gone" but I tend to agree...I inspected at Palmetto, and my team attended NC and DC. From one perspective, the gameplay has seemed to degrade throughout the season. It can still be a very exciting game in eliminations, but it is too easy for a match to become a frustrating battle to avoid defense. This is my opinion, of course, but I believe the games are much better when an increasing level of game play is synonymous with increased elegance, finesse, and technical expertise. Too many matches in the elimination rounds become one power house alliance shutting down the offense of the other by blockade. The elimination matches I saw earlier in the season seemed to have quicker, more spectacular scoring cycles...often deciding a match at the buzzer by a two or three assist goal...at the end, there are far fewer of these and many more struggles to break the blockade and score.

I disagree that scoring-only games are fundamentally better. For one, they effectively prevent participation by rookie robots that can barely do more than drive; that's not particularly conducive to inspiring those teams and keeping them in the organization. Moreover, lack of defense quite simply means lack of strategic depth in this game - there is no point to do anything other than three-assist cycle as fast as you possibly can if the other robots don't do anything to stop you. I think seeing alliances forced to adapt and overcome stiff defense is far more exciting that watching which of two noninteracting teams can perform a task the fastest.

[AllenGregoryIV]

I want to talk a little about what the GDC did well in Aerial Assist.

The low goals in this game are the best I have ever seen. Scoring in the low goal can be accomplished by a kit bot with ease. They don't have too many false positive, most of the time when the ball enters the goal it stays in. This game would be much worse with out such a simple way to end the cycle. Low goals in the past have basically only been touched during field setup and take down (2012, 2013). This is a very good thing, we are seeing far fewer under 10 point alliance scores. There are still some but not nearly as many as in previous years. We had problems with our launcher at our first event and we were still able to win a lot of matches by using the low goal effectively. In previous years if your shooter wasn't working, you were just out of luck.

Simple way to score in auton, the mobility bonus is a good idea. It's clean and simple and rewards teams for the effort of making an autonomous even if it doesn't work. For many teams just getting driver control is difficult allowing a simple challenge is excellent for those teams.

Truss vs. High Goal - Having two ways to earn points that are very similar but differ in their accuracy requirements is a very good concept. This allows teams that can build a launcher but not one that is as accurate to still have a valuable role. It's sort of like the 2-point goal from last year except you're able to get maximum points per game piece. In 2013 you were at a big disadvantage if you weren't shooting in to the high goal, truss specialists this year are far more useful then 2-point goal scorers last year.

No End Game - I actually really like this. It allows teams to build higher quality robots since they don't have to spread themselves to thin. There wasn't a need to reserve weight or motors for a mechanism that is only used in the last 15 seconds of the match. The last second truss shots and goals are more intense then climbs last year. Points swings in the last second can be up to 40 points. You also get last second defense which we haven't really had in the past for risk of big penalties. This is the same type of drama you see at the end of a good basketball game.

Human player role - I have never liked the idea of human players (and I was one for two years in HS) but I think this is the best implementation we have ever had. They don't get to score points directly but they can have a big impact on matches. The human players have to work well with the robots to get efficient cycles. And we are off the trend of having them heave full court shots at the end of matches. Though they did have a impact on a few matches in 2012 and 2013, I don't think that aspect really made the games any better.

This game absolutely has problems, but the GDC did some innovative things and some of them have made for a better game.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by FrankJ

That on is on the margins. G27 I think would be the rule in question. It would have to be seen as intentional for that to apply though. The actual entanglement is not shown. It would depend on who was pushing who & if blues appendage was inside its frame perimeter when the entanglement happened, as it looks like it might well have been.

Note that regardless blue is pinning red, but not assessed a penalty. I understand the entire audience was yelling for a foul...