Why does everyone hate this game so much?

[Oblarg]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

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

It is not immediately clear that that is a "pin." There seem to be several points where the robots try to disentangle themselves.

[FrankJ]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

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

At that point they were entangled. Blue was incapable of pulling away. Or when they did, red followed ending the pin.

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by FrankJ

At that point they were entangled. Blue was incapable of pulling away. Or when they did, red followed ending the pin.

It definitely feels like blue should have had a pinning penalty there, considering their intake was extended for no apparent reason.

What was also lacking from the video was any sort of pinning count, which is a precursor to the calls.

[Kevin Leonard]

Originally Posted by 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.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to AllenGregoryIV again.

Thank you for articulating much of what I liked about the game without me realizing that's what it was!

[Hoover]

I like this game and I think it is exciting.

Because of the magnitude of the fouls it is made over-emotional. When our students complain to us mentors about a scoring issue after the game we point them to the question box. If they are shy we take them to it, then stand nearby. Sure us mentors are just as involved, we are on their side and will support them, but for us this is a chance for us to help our students be more assertive. Taking the kids to the refs was considered mentors approaching the refs at a recent venue and we were later sternly warned in the pit area. We assured them this was not our intent but at the same time they considered our teams forward approach to the refs was challenging their 'decisions which were final'. How true. In our 3 years we have never once had a decision over turned or a possibly uncredited opponent foul considered so I wonder why we still bother. We are human.

I did have one thing cleared up - that of evaporating points. As most of you probably know (but naive me did not), our fouls are being added to the opponents score (or vice-verse) in real time during the match. However, after the match, in the refs huddle, fouls are then fluctuating, coming into existence, going out of existence, or changing value. For example a 50 point foul that had your alliance ahead during the match might be re-evaluated to a 20 point foul now putting the alliance behind. We have learned the hard way to never stop adding points to your score, hardly ever try to rely on denying your opponents goal in the last minute if you are ahead as your sole means of winning. But in a pinch...

However, that being said, in the heat of a match it is incredibly hard to know how much of your score consists of foul points. Who's looking at that? You look up every 30 seconds if even that to view the score. As I told one alliance during qualifications, 'we need more points to stay a fouls width of winning'. If foul points were listed as a second number this would be very helpful.

There is no solution I know of to know if fouls are going to be added on at the end. The only caveat to that is, if there is an outstanding foul call known to the refs during teleop but no points have been added, at least have an indicator that it may happen as it will affect strategy.

That is all I have to say about the 2014 games. We actually had fun. A fond farewell and good luck to all our friends still standing. Volunteers we still love ya. I bid you all adieu.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by FrankJ

At that point they were entangled. Blue was incapable of pulling away. Or when they did, red followed ending the pin.

Blue had red up against the barrier for much longer than 5 seconds. The ref was failing to count the pin. Of course Blue was entangled, but given the calls this year, blue should have pulled away from the side to avoid the pin call--that didn't happen. It's very difficult to imagine that red which had the ball had engaged with blue while blue had its mechanism down--it almost certainly happened the other way around.

[RallyJeff]

Originally Posted by Hoover

I did have one thing cleared up - that of evaporating points. As most of you probably know (but naive me did not), our fouls are being added to the opponents score (or vice-verse) in real time during the match. However, after the match, in the refs huddle, fouls are then fluctuating, coming into existence, going out of existence, or changing value. For example a 50 point foul that had your alliance ahead during the match might be re-evaluated to a 20 point foul now putting the alliance behind. We have learned the hard way to never stop adding points to your score, hardly ever try to rely on denying your opponents goal in the last minute if you are ahead as your sole means of winning. But in a pinch...

Also, fouls (or goals) can sometimes happen just as the buzzer is sounding. The ref tablets automatically lock out five seconds after the match ends, so we sometimes have to get the scorekeeper to enter these "buzzer beaters" manually after the fact.

It might help clarify things to explain my own process. Other head refs might have different systems, but this is what I do: during the match, the refs radio fouls to me as they happen. I make a quick note for each of them in my notebook. As a check at the end of the match, I'll tally up the number of fouls and tech fouls I recorded in my notebook and compare it to what the scorekeeper has on his screen. If they match, great. If they don't, I talk to the refs to figure out the reason for the discrepancy. Refs are human, and this year's game is intense. Occasionally, it'll happen that - for instance - a ref accidentally hits the foul button instead of the tech foul button. In these cases where there's a discrepancy, I confirm what the fouls should be and get the scorekeeper to adjust them if necessary.

We strive to be accurate during the match, but if a mistake is made, my approach is that it's better to catch it and fix it than to let it go.

Originally Posted by Hoover

However, that being said, in the heat of a match it is incredibly hard to know how much of your score consists of foul points. Who's looking at that? You look up every 30 seconds if even that to view the score. As I told one alliance during qualifications, 'we need more points to stay a fouls width of winning'. If foul points were listed as a second number this would be very helpful.

I've never been a coach myself, but since this year's game only has one game piece per alliance (most of the time), is this something that the coach could track? If they're watching the ball anyhow, they might be able to keep a mental tally of trusses, catches, assists and goals as they happen.

It'd be a lot to keep track of, and I'm not sure how it fits in the rest of their workload, but that might be a possibility.

Originally Posted by Hoover

There is no solution I know of to know if fouls are going to be added on at the end. The only caveat to that is, if there is an outstanding foul call known to the refs during teleop but no points have been added, at least have an indicator that it may happen as it will affect strategy.

When it comes right down to it, you aren't going to ever be sure that fouls won't be added on at the end. Even when everything's working perfectly, there's still a chance of a tech foul right at the end of the game that suddenly shifts the score by a large margin.

[MrBasse]

Originally Posted by RallyJeff

I've never been a coach myself, but since this year's game only has one game piece per alliance (most of the time), is this something that the coach could track? If they're watching the ball anyhow, they might be able to keep a mental tally of trusses, catches, assists and goals as they happen.

It'd be a lot to keep track of, and I'm not sure how it fits in the rest of their workload, but that might be a possibility.

I don't how how this might work, I typically am pretty focused on my teams robot and the areas directly around our robot. It has been shown multiple times that six refs with tablets can't accurately keep track of which balls are auto balls, fouls, or assists. Nothing against them, this is an impressively difficult game to referee. But if they can't do it consistently as a team, how is a coach going to manage it while coaching too?

I showed this game to my friend who officiates football games and every question he had was about how the refs could possibly keep up with all of it.

[RallyJeff]

Originally Posted by MrBasse

I don't how how this might work, I typically am pretty focused on my teams robot and the areas directly around our robot.

Fair enough.

It has been shown multiple times that six refs with tablets can't accurately keep track of which balls are auto balls, fouls, or assists. Nothing against them, this is an impressively difficult game to referee. But if they can't do it consistently as a team, how is a coach going to manage it while coaching too?

The refs aren't actually keeping track of all this. Not directly, anyhow. A lot of it is built into the ref tablets and the field management system. For auto balls vs. balls in the cycle, the tablets switch modes when the last auto ball is scored. The refs don't actually track assists directly - they just punch in possessions as they happen and the FMS does the computation to figure out how many assists those possessions work out to.

But you do raise a good point: the refs have the benefit of a screen in front of them showing how many auto balls are remaining on the field for whichever alliance they're tracking. Without that, I can understand how someone could lose track of whether they're on their last ball from auto or their first cycle, especially if they're focused on just one robot. Judging by the number of teams I've seen try to score truss points with an auto ball, I guess that sort of confusion happens a lot.

[KevinG]

Okay, having gone through a second regional, I'm definitely the line that this game is a good idea that was terribly executed. The refs were completely overwhelmed, and we actually lost a match because a possession wasn't counted. Not that it really mattered in the end, but it's incredibly frustrating to have your last match end on such a sour note.

The subjective nature of the game also makes ranking by win/loss a complete joke. I think FIRST should have made Assist points the primary determining factor for ranking, and then made win/loss a tiebreaker. In spite of the name there wasn't a lot of assisting going on during the qualifiers, with far too many teams just taking the ball and playing it themselves.

Still a lot of fun to watch though, especially in eliminations.

[Dunngeon]

Originally Posted by KGenson

Okay, having gone through a second regional, I'm definitely the line that this game is a good idea that was terribly executed. The refs were completely overwhelmed, and we actually lost a match because a possession wasn't counted. Not that it really mattered in the end, but it's incredibly frustrating to have your last match end on such a sour note.

The subjective nature of the game also makes ranking by win/loss a complete joke. I think FIRST should have made Assist points the primary determining factor for ranking, and then made win/loss a tiebreaker. In spite of the name there wasn't a lot of assisting going on during the qualifiers, with far too many teams just taking the ball and playing it themselves.

Still a lot of fun to watch though, especially in eliminations.

I would argue that making the game scored primarily with assists would further the dependence on a good alliance in Qualifying. Some teams (not always the best) would get lucky and have a good alliance where all 3 robots work. Or you could have a bad schedule where none of your alliance robots work, your robot carries the match and you would still lose because you have no assist points.

With assists, this game is already very dependent on your teammates working. Making assists the primary method of scoring for seeding would incorrectly reward teams for winning the proverbial lottery and having good alliances.

[DampRobot]

After competing in our second regional with a bot that could actually play, I never again want to play a game where qualification matches are essentially a test of who got luckier with their partners.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by DampRobot

After competing in our second regional with a bot that could actually play, I never again want to play a game where qualification matches are essentially a test of who got luckier with their partners.

Better quit FIRST, then.

[KevinG]

Originally Posted by Dunngeon

I would argue that making the game scored primarily with assists would further the dependence on a good alliance in Qualifying. Some teams (not always the best) would get lucky and have a good alliance where all 3 robots work. Or you could have a bad schedule where none of your alliance robots work, your robot carries the match and you would still lose because you have no assist points.

With assists, this game is already very dependent on your teammates working. Making assists the primary method of scoring for seeding would incorrectly reward teams for winning the proverbial lottery and having good alliances.

Teams are already rewarded for winning the alliance lottery. The issue I have is teams essentially ignoring their fully functional alliance partners to do everything themselves. Even a box bot can get an assist, but there were multiple times I saw human players ignore their partners and wait for their own bot to get to them.

[Qbot2640]

I, like many, have been reluctant to jump into this conversation - but finally decided to add my two cents:

While all FIRST games have a measure of dependence on good qualifier alliances, this one was extreme because of the one ball at a time feature. The damage done to an entire alliance by one robot that took forever to perform their part of the cycle was typically not reparable. And because the opposing alliance only needed one robot to control the ball at any given time it was too easy to deploy the other two on the one good robot.

I think the game needed a mid-field protected zone, or a protected travel strip along the borders to make it possible for a good robot on a bad alliance to generate some offense.

Unrelated to my central point - I think the catch should have been valued much higher relative to the truss (throw). That could have significantly changed the dynamic as well.