The New Endgame

[Nathan Rossi]

Originally Posted by BBray_T1296

Who says buzzer beaters don't happen with end games?


(though this wasn't a buzzer beater, it could have been)

Here's a real buzzer balance!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk5YOeSMKLQ

[AlexD744]

Does no one remember 67's after the buzzer hang that won them Einstein in 2010? Forget the last second, those matches were down to the wire until after the buzzer!

The endgame is not what makes the matches boring/exciting, the caliber of teams on both sides of the field is what makes it exciting.

That being said, I do agree this year had some of the most exciting elim matches. When it was close you knew anything could tip the balance.

[Taylor]

I think the idea of endgame is completely game-dependent. In most, if not all, of the previous years, there were two very clear tasks - the gameplay and the endgame. 2005: Put tetras up high, then run back. 2006: Put poofs up high, then climb a ramp. 2007: Put pool tubes up high, then climb another robot. 2008: Put ridiculously large balls up high, then leave them there. And so on.
As Frank mentioned in his Frank Answers Friday Live at CHP, this game was designed to more closely approximate traditional sports. Much like traditional sports, this required teams to specialize (every team sport has individual players that excel at a certain aspect of the game). With the specialization that comes with AA, there wasn't a need to add a secondary challenge - especially since there were three ways to score points instantly.
Given the way Mother Nature treated us this year, I'm glad there wasn't an additional challenge.
I also think it's interesting that VEX Skyrise doesn't have an endgame this year.

[mwtidd]

With the massive growth in FTC, I hope this is a sign that FIRST is strategically using the two organizations to bring about cultural change. I for one hope that some of the elements of the games we love will move to FTC, where as elements of the game spectators love will be emphasized in FRC. We've done a great job of convincing the choir that this is cool, now we need to convince the Atheists outside.

It's my belief that having only one "game" lowers the barrier to entry for casual (elimination) spectators.

[Gregor]

Originally Posted by Taylor

As Frank mentioned in his Frank Answers Friday Live at CHP, this game was designed to more closely approximate traditional sports. Much like traditional sports, this required teams to specialize (every team sport has individual players that excel at a certain aspect of the game). With the specialization that comes with AA, there wasn't a need to add a secondary challenge - especially since there were three ways to score points instantly.

I think that's interesting that Frank said that. I would argue that last year was much more important to specialize.

This year every elite team had to be able to do everything in the game, ground pickup, trussing, high goal scoring, low goal scoring, inbounding, and defence.

Last year there was no single team that accomplished every task in the game. Floor pickup, 30 pt climbing, 20 pt dumping, and full court shooting were all relatively rare, and they were never seen all together by the one robot. On top of that, you had to pick teams that were different from yours. Two floor pickups were a bit much. 2 dumpers? Diminishing returns.

The most difference you got this year was trusser vs. finisher, and elite teams still had to be able to do both.

[Matt17]

I get where FIRST was coming from when they took out the endgame this year. It evened out the playing field especially for newer teams and also allowed more time for the alliance to really work as a team to score rather than one robot's endgame. The pyramid from Ultimate Ascent was only used by some teams due to the difficulty of the task. Overall, I think they should bring it back with something like the bridges from Rebound Rumble which were the best.

[jvriezen]

If you consider end-games, they typically have major point levels --- 1,2,3 bots balancing in '12, 1,2,3 level climb in '13, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th place in 2011. 1 or 1+1 bots hanging in '10.

In my mind, every cycle in '14 is like an 'end-game' activity. The point level depends upon the number of assists and low/high goal you are able to attain.

In prior games (for the most part, except '11) the mid-game scoring had a very narrow range of points earned for each score (and most competitive bots all went for the high scoring option, effectively narrowing the range further) This made the progression of the match mostly predictable until the point swinging end game.

Granted the top '14 alliances had fairly consistent points per cycle, but one slip up missing a truss or an assist or settling for low goal and the tide can turn. And a lot of matches flip-flopped on the lead when teams were evenly matched as each side completed a cycle.

So think of '14 as continuous end games. Which team can complete the 'end-game' activities more times (with more earned points) ?

[AndrewPospeshil]

Personally I think the necessity of an endgame depends on the game itself. The "New" type of FRC game that more closely resembles a sport doesn't need an endgame. Matches could end in a very tense manner with last second scores for big points, putting them over the other alliance (or assuring their victory). Plus that's one less element to follow, one less mechanism to build, and a slightly more level playing field for rookies/vets. Games like UA kind of needed an endgame, otherwise they ended up being relatively stale and repetitive, even if hangs were generally only a few points. If we get more games like we saw this year, I would love for the elimination of an entirely new endgame like we saw with UA, and instead introduce a risk-oriented or strategy-oriented endgame, that didn't require any other game pieces or mechanisms, but smart plays and good strategy. One that was suggested in this thread was bonus points for balls scored in the last few seconds of a match. If the ball was scored, it could win the game for the alliance. If, however, they missed, the opponent may overtake the other alliance's score. This would lead to clutch plays and quick decision making, placing a little more power in the drivers' hands so that better robots wouldn't always win by default and rookie teams with skilled drivers/coaches would have more of a chance.

[BBray_T1296]

Originally Posted by Nathan Rossi

Here's a real buzzer balance!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk5YOeSMKLQ

I was referring to the ball we scored while balanced, but yeah that would have been exciting to watch (the crowd's reaction)

[BBray_T1296]

As others have pointed out, the endgame definitely depends on the full game itself.

-For Aerial Assist, there was no need for the end game. The pressure of last second large points was enough.
-For UA, yeah the endgame was needed. With so many pieces and a lack of real strategy (more cycles!), there needed to be some kind of quick decision on the part of the players as to finish that last cycle, or to go for the 10 point hang. However, I feel that the 10 point hangs were too easy. It was way to simple for a robot to just ram the pyramid at the last second and get 10 points.
-For Rebound Rumble, the bridge balancing hit the nail on the proverbial head. They were worth big points, but if you got 1 less robot than the other team, it was not the end of the world if you could score fast enough earlier. There was tons of excitement and it was really simple to grasp that balancing was the objective, and more robots=more points. I think RR had the best endgame of the 5 years I have been a part of FRC
-For Logomotion, despite the overpowered-ness of the point values, this was my favorite endgame to date. The concept was simple, although the rules were not restrictive enough. There was a significant challenge to teams and played a large part in the success of the best teams.
-For Breakaway, the end game was scored perfectly. There was an unpredictably (to us, apparently not the GDC) low number of balls scored every game, and the 2 point hang was just right to make robots design something tough but could really pay off as 2 points could sway the match very often. The 3 point double hang was never done (to my knowledge) but I believe it was due to the incapability of teams to design with other teams systems in mind.


I think the ideal endgame is one where you must design a system hardly related to the main challenge, with the included diversion of weight from the main manipulator. A task that is rewarding to both see from a spectator point of view, and from the win/loss point of view. The point value and nature of the challenge/risk must be set up carefully, so as to make the endgame worth attempting, but not making it impossible to defeat, to discourage robots solely dedicated to the endgame, but also discourage robots without endgame mechanisms. The task must be tough from an engineering standpoint, such that it is advantageous to have a portion of your team entirely dedicated to just the endgame device, but again not so tough to require too much weight or complexity, so as to discourage doing it.
That being said, if the endgame is sufficiently spectacular (Read: RR) simplicity is OK.

just my $0.03