FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies

[robodude03]

Originally Posted by Oblarg

This might not be what you're intending, but this reads an awful lot like "screw what other people think, my opinion is the correct one."

That's not a particularly productive view to have.

I, for one, like this game quite a bit. There are issues, yes, but the fundamental design is the best FIRST has had in a long while. FRC has gone too long with three robots playing in parallel rather than three robots playing as a team.

Her opinion is just that, her opinion. This game has caused a number of reactions both good and bad which I feel are valid and should be considered by FIRST. As subjective as this game is, opinions will range based on the volunteers running the event and the teams participating. Some have been good while others have been downright difficult. Needless to say FIRST can and should make changes based on the reactions of their paying customers. I respect that Frank and FIRST are actively looking into this response, but I still believe there is work to be done on that front.

[Madison]

Originally Posted by Oblarg

This might not be what you're intending, but this reads an awful lot like "screw what other people think, my opinion is the correct one."

That's not a particularly productive view to have.

I, for one, like this game quite a bit. There are issues, yes, but the fundamental design is the best FIRST has had in a long while. FRC has gone too long with three robots playing in parallel rather than three robots playing as a team.

What do you consider the 'fundamental design' to be? Is it the simple, high-level description absent of all rules? Is it the full rule book?

I certainly understand and agree with the many claims that foul point values are completely out of whack for most infractions, that rule enforcement is arbitrary and varied, and that a team's performance is very closely tied with the capability of randomly assigned alliance members. I think the decisions that led to the implementation of those rules were flawed, but will concede that others can disagree and I have no irrefutable evidence that supports my position.

However, the field does not work and the referees are not able to credit teams appropriately for accomplishing rudimentary game tasks. Can anyone reasonably refute either of these claims? Fundamentally, FIRST did not provide a product that lives up to the expectation they set at kick-off. The result of a survey should not dissuade FIRST from understanding that and taking corrective action; and I do not necessarily believe that it will.

There are, in my opinion, too many people in FIRST that use the notion, true as it may be, that "it's not about the robots" as a get out of jail free card and as an excuse for poor performance. I'm getting pretty frustrated by that.

[Mike Copioli]

I think if a survey was sent to drive coaches only, the results would be much different.

[magnets]

Originally Posted by Mike Copioli

I think if a survey was sent to drive coaches only, the results would be much different.

Agreed. The game is actually quite fun, but after a frustrating, FMS and referee error filled match, there is nobody on a team that has been inspired. If anything, kids are discouraged from putting hours and hours of work into FIRST after playing this game.

In fact, I am wondering if there is a single drive coach (with a few years of FRC experience) of a competitive, elimination round, non rookie team that is happy with the game.

[bkahl]

Originally Posted by Mike Copioli

I think if a survey was sent to drive coaches only, the results would be much different.

Couldn't agree more.

[pntbll1313]

Originally Posted by magnets

In fact, I am wondering if there is a single drive coach (with a few years of FRC experience) of a competitive, elimination round, non rookie team that is happy with the game.

I'm sure I am in the tiny minority (especially here on CD) that has actually found this game the most challenging and strategic in recent years. I have had fun devising strategies that get "box bot's" involved in the action. Last year we had a great robot that could win matches by itself. This year we have a great robot as well but we need everyone to do their part. I am easily one of the most active coaches on the floor running to and from alliance driver stations. It's fun trying to choreograph a match, especially because the dynamics change so often with defense. Last year was a fantastic game, (my favorite) however we could simply run cycles, tell our partners to play defense, and win. This year has so much more involved.

Of course there are many bad aspects of the game. Losing a match because of a bogus call, missing assists points, and other things that I'm sure this thread will evolve into as most other threads have lately, are so frustrating when they happen. I agree there are a ton of things that were not thought out and should have been improved with this game. I just thought I should say that I still have a great time coaching it.

This is just my opinion of the game and I know most people (on CD at least) hate the game. Please don't bother trying to convince me how much it sucks, I've already read countless pages of that

[magnets]

Originally Posted by pntbll1313

I'm sure I am in the tiny minority (especially here on CD) that has actually found this game the most challenging and strategic in recent years. I have had fun devising strategies that get "box bot's" involved in the action. Last year we had a great robot that could win matches by itself. This year we have a great robot as well but we need everyone to do their part. I am easily one of the most active coaches on the floor running to and from alliance driver stations. It's fun trying to choreograph a match, especially because the dynamics change so often with defense. Last year was a fantastic game, (my favorite) however we could simply run cycles, tell our partners to play defense, and win. This year has so much more involved.

Of course there are many bad aspects of the game. Losing a match because of a bogus call, missing assists points, and other things that I'm sure this thread will evolve into as most other threads have lately, are so frustrating when they happen. I agree there are a ton of things that were not thought out and should have been improved with this game. I just thought I should say that I still have a great time coaching it.

This is just my opinion of the game and I know most people (on CD at least) hate the game. Please don't bother trying to convince me how much it sucks, I've already read countless pages of that

I really do agree with a lot of what you're saying. I had a fantastic time at our first event as the drive coach. The depth of strategy and quality of gameplay were the best I have ever seen. All three robots on our alliance were contributing and smart members of the team.

My perfect and happy time with the game ended at a second event, where bad calls, field issues, and fms problems ruined my day.

[Aren Siekmeier]

Originally Posted by magnets

I really do agree with a lot of what you're saying. I had a fantastic time at our first event as the drive coach. The depth of strategy and quality of gameplay were the best I have ever seen. All three robots on our alliance were contributing and smart members of the team.

My perfect and happy time with the game ended at a second event, where bad calls, field issues, and fms problems ruined my day.

Same.

[Oblarg]

Originally Posted by Madison

What do you consider the 'fundamental design' to be? Is it the simple, high-level description absent of all rules? Is it the full rule book?

One ball per alliance, score generated by all robots on the alliance working to get it into the goal, with a wide open field and lots of potential for defense. I think that is a fundamentally very good design, and far more interesting than anything FRC has done in the past.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Mike Copioli

I think if a survey was sent to drive coaches only, the results would be much different.

Do you believe that the drive coach's opinion is more important than the main or alternate contact? If so, why?

[dodar]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

Do you believe that the drive coach's opinion is more important than the main or alternate contact? If so, why?

If the NFL wanted to know the effect of new pass interference rules, would they ask someone from the front office of a team or the Head Coach?

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by dodar

If the NFL wanted to know the effect of new pass interference rules, would they ask someone from the front office of a team or the Head Coach?

Both.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

Both.

Use some common sense man. You wanna know the effect of rules on a game, ask the people who deal with them directly on a constant basis.

And those front office people are only on there because of NFL politics.

[Pi3th0n]

Originally Posted by magnets

In fact, I am wondering if there is a single drive coach (with a few years of FRC experience) of a competitive, elimination round, non rookie team that is happy with the game.

I am a drive coach with (now) 2 years of experience on a non-rookie team that made it to elimination rounds at both of our regionals this year. And I have to say... I LOVE this game! I'm a huge fan of everything strategy-related, so the strategy component of this year's game really excites me, especially compared to last year's game.
So yes, there's at least 1 drive coach who meets your criteria.

I've read lots of ChiefDelphi and I understand everyone's complaints about this year's game. However, I think it's important that we don't be too harsh on the GDC. They tried to be different and innovative! Maybe it didn't work this year... but so what? If all we do is say "You did it wrong! We hate it! We liked Ultimate Ascent!", then the GDC will stop trying new and different things, and the rest of the games we play until forever will be largely the same. And sure, Ultimate Ascent two or three years in a row might be ok... but wouldn't it get old eventually? As long as we ask for different games every year, we'll have to just accept that fact that not every game will be perfect.

There's always going to be someone who's unhappy (As evidenced by last year's polls), but if you're the one who's unhappy, lets please please please not bring down everyone else.

[scooty199]

I don't necessarily believe we're mad at the attempt GDC made. It's a bold attempt, I like that. I love the strategic complexity of the game. If I was mentoring a team right now I'd mention a lot of things.

But the idealized, theoretical way that GDC probably envisioned this game and how it actually plays out are two very different things in my eyes.

As has been said before, sports style games are fun, but remember that modern sports and their rules are backed by decades (Some centuries) of observation.

I also fully support *respectfully* criticizing aspects of the game and GDC decisions. There's a difference. We can be harsh towards the GDC.