The New Endgame

[Zebra_Fact_Man]

My thought as brief as possible:

If you heavily restrict defensive play as 2013, 2012, 2011, and 2008 did, you absolutely need an end game, as there is no feasible way for the loosing alliance to catch up baring a series of mistakes/misses by the winning alliance.

But if you allow scoring defense like 2014, 2010, 2009, 2007, 2006, and 2005, you really don't NEED an endgame to catchup or keep it interesting, and in some instances, it can become rather distracting. Simply a well-placed tube or well-timed block can make all the difference.

Solid, clean defensive play is not only what wins championships, but it's naturally what keeps contact sports (robots) exciting. Can the offense overcome the other team's defense in the clutch?

[rich2202]

With 20-20 hindsight, I think an interesting end game twist would have been:

During the final 30 seconds, all catches are worth 10 points (ball tossed either way over the truss). Basically, let two robots volley between each other to rack up points. That would have put more value in adding catching to the design of robots.

[dubiousSwain]

I think an important point to consider when weighing the question of the endgame is the flow of the match

In 2013, when the robots hung (most only for 10 pts), the game just stopped. Sometimes there was 10 seconds when the robots weren't doing anything.
In 2011, the robots stopped in front of the poles, and deployed the minibots. now, there was a lot less time then, but they still stopped. In 2012, unless they were having a hard time balancing, the robots stopped and waited for the buzzer

In this game, the robots are fighting to swing the score up until the buzzer. The buzzer cues the screaming from the crowd. I personally think that, as a spectator, this year has been the most exciting game. There aren't a ton of game pieces to follow, and when a team isn't scoring, they are giving defense to the robot with the ball. The driving is more intense, and when you are down by 20 in the last 10 seconds of the finals, I would rather see robots make a buzzer beater than stop in a certain position to win. I don't want to see a endgame if next year's game is as exciting as this one.

[Tem1514 Mentor]

I would be all to happy to never see an end game again after all the problems with minibots

Like the sensors not working and or having a game decided by a endgame. I would like to see FIRST continue with the team work idea for so many reasons.

[StillDefective]

The end game in FTC this year was actually very exciting at least to me, because by raising your alliance flag and hanging, you could COMPLETELY swing a match, and getting a double hang or a two alliance double hang kept you on the edge of your seat for the last 30 seconds, but the Tele-Op was not very exciting.

On the other end, AA was only exciting at the very high levels, but when it was at those high levels, it made probably the most exciting and almost the best game FRC has had. I like the idea of having an endgame for only one robot so the other two have to keep playing the normal game, but the match can still be swung.

[Pault]

Completely depends on the game. Personally I think the reason there was no endgame this year was because a single score could create a giant point swing, often changing the match. That is honestly one of the biggest reasons for having an endgame in the first place: making it so that most matches aren't over until the buzzer rings. Imagine if there was no endgame for the last 3 years. Matches would get pretty boring once one alliance started to gain a significant lead, and there would be no excitement leading up to the end of all but the closest matches.

I honestly don't care whether there is an end game or not, so long as the point swing is still possible. I think the GDC should be making this decision based on the game, not basing the game around this decision.

[CADKnight334]

Personally, I think FIRST has an opportunity to switch things up next year for the endgame. I think that the reintroduction of minibots will not only be challenging to design, but it will make the game more entertaining to think about. Your robot is deploying a smaller bot to complete a task. I think FIRST could even start making an endgame that involved minibots that flew and landed somewhere for points. Nothing too complicated like going through hoops and rings of fire but something to watch that introduces that wow factor. I do agree with the fact that it could also be a way for an alliance to come back from behind in a match. Endgames present a challenge that is unique and solvable in many ways and I think that has value in showing off different designs at competition.

[BBray_T1296]

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


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

[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.

[Foster]

Originally Posted by dubiousSwain

In this game, the robots are fighting to swing the score up until the buzzer. The buzzer cues the screaming from the crowd. I personally think that, as a spectator, this year has been the most exciting game. There aren't a ton of game pieces to follow, and when a team isn't scoring, they are giving defense to the robot with the ball. The driving is more intense, and when you are down by 20 in the last 10 seconds of the finals, I would rather see robots make a buzzer beater than stop in a certain position to win.

This. Last second action. And while I like the idea of multifunction robots (shoot and hang) the Hail Mary at the end of regular play is great.

I did most of my match watching via the computer and it was much easier to follow the action with only two balls in play.

[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.