|
#106
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Was Aerial Assist Better than Ultimate Ascent?
Quote:
I think if you want to see what the GDC intended, look at 1678's matches 51 and 135 in Newton. We seemed to have an inordinate number of rookies with us, but we took that as challenge that turned out to be quite fun. In those two matches we were projected to lose, but we worked with those rookie teams and worked out game strategies that highlighted their abilities and strengths. In at least two cases, those rookie teams had much stronger teams that benefited their other alliance partners as well (including making the race with 1114 a nail biter). 5310 went from being 2-10 at 2 regionals to 5-5 in Newton. In last year's game, I'm not sure that we would have devoted the same amount of resources to those teams, but I expect now we'll raise the level of our outreach no matter what the future game is. The reward was huge from the satisfaction--probably greater than any other accomplishment we had last weekend. ![]() |
|
#107
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Was Aerial Assist Better than Ultimate Ascent?
Quote:
|
|
#108
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Was Aerial Assist Better than Ultimate Ascent?
Quote:
|
|
#109
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Was Aerial Assist Better than Ultimate Ascent?
Quote:
Rather than starting over, here's a thread where this is discussed much more extensively: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=128301. |
|
#110
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Was Aerial Assist Better than Ultimate Ascent?
Quote:
|
|
#111
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Was Aerial Assist Better than Ultimate Ascent?
Quote:
|
|
#112
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Was Aerial Assist Better than Ultimate Ascent?
Quote:
|
|
#113
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Was Aerial Assist Better than Ultimate Ascent?
Quote:
I don't know that I agree with the attempted ubiquity of the generalization, but I do agree that the cohort whose behavior might be affected by this incentive is not over-large. |
|
#114
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Was Aerial Assist Better than Ultimate Ascent?
Quote:
I also think by making an announcement, this makes the incentive and the expected action by these teams more explicit. Up to now those mid level teams could quietly sit in their bubbles and not be too worried about the consequences. In the new world, FIRST would be saying that your past inaction will now have consequences. In addition, the better teams might be more likely to set up regional efforts that spill over to the mid-level teams and raises everyone's game as a result. As it is now, there are no real incentives for preseason cooperation other than Chairman's or EI. Sorry, but relying solely on voluntary actions to achieve an organizational goal is almost always a fruitless path (and there's much in the economics literature to back this up.) |
|
#115
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Was Aerial Assist Better than Ultimate Ascent?
Quote:
|
|
#116
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Was Aerial Assist Better than Ultimate Ascent?
Quote:
In Ultimate Ascent, our fledgling team was sometimes told to "stay out of the way and we will win" by more experienced teams. A team - typically a well-resourced veteran team - could design a scoring machine and forget that anyone else was even on the field. For Aerial Assist, the emphasis on passing points forced top-level teams to find ways to incorporate lesser robots into the match. While this year we felt the frustration of having an overall well-designed concept that did not advance, I fully understand the reasons why. As with any competition, if you are not THE talent, then you better at least have something significant to contribute. Overall, this year's game raised the floor without lowering the ceiling. |
|
#117
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Was Aerial Assist Better than Ultimate Ascent?
I am 100% in agreement!
For the same reasons as everyone else said: strategy and teamwork. But not only that, but it was a more "rookie" friendly game and could be pulled off with a lack of complex engineering that I found Ultimate Ascent required. At my regionals, a team did nothing but inbound the ball and they ended up in the top fifteen qualification seed! Furthermore, from a spectator perspective, Arial Assist was much easier to follow and resembled more of a sport than a menial task. |
|
#118
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Was Aerial Assist Better than Ultimate Ascent?
Aerial Assist is a bad game with a good concept, Ultimate Ascent was a good game with a "bad concept". I believe that Ultimate Ascent had a very good challenge and a good number of choices regarding the challenges you choose to complete, even weaker teams could go for the low goal as a way to help their alliance . Like Rebound Rumble, Ultimate Ascent is a very developed game, but every robot plays it's own game, with way less interaction between alliances and inside alliances, like people already said, it was a solo mission, yet a good solo mission, that could be fun to watch at lower levels too. Aerial Assist introduced a new way of playing first games, where there is a good level of interaction required between and inside the alliances, this created a new level of strategy behind the gameplay. Aerial Assist also had the goalie zones, which created a very high level of autonomous gameplay, especially at Einstein. Sure, you can say that for every goalie that worked well there were 10 that ended up doing nothing, but that just depends on the mentality of the teams, there will always be teams that design their robot around an idea that doesn't work, so i'm pro goalie zones. Another thing that i liked very much is the idea that the score goes up in leaps, which makes the game much more interesting to watch, because the crowd accumulates a lot of excitement for when the ball is scored, like in football (soccer). Don't get me wrong i do think that only one game object per alliance always leaves 2 teams to find something else to do, and this gets us to the bad part of Aerial Assist. This is a game that, right from the start, felt empty, like a recycled game, it is missing an end game and it has a very small set of variations for your robot to have, i feel like the field is too open which normally leaves all the robots in the middle of the field, just pushing each other, that's not really fun to watch. Aerial Assist was designed too much around the idea that all robots will be able to play their roles at a high level, which made the qualification matches and earlier regionals extremely boring to watch, yet made the elimination rounds at the Championships some of the best games ever seen in FRC. Aerial Assist also has a very undeveloped set of rules, like G40, it is a penalty big enough to easily change the result of a game, just because the human player can't get close to the robot, i believe human players know when they are too close to the robots, this rule should be changed to give them more space ( for example, only giving the penalty if they extend their arms inside the field) and still impeding unsafe contact with the robot ( for example giving the penalty for direct or indirect contact with the robot). There are other rules with failures, but my point is that Aerial Assist introduced a new kind of game, that has a potential to create very interesting games and it also involves more of the FIRST spirit in the challenge, and that's why i believe having this game, was not wasting a year of FRC, but it is the first game of what i hope to be the new kind of FRC games(or maybe we could just switch to water games since everyone knows they are inevitable), so it is still undeveloped and i believe that the next games will fix that.
Just my 2 cents ( sorry if i offended anyone) |
|
#119
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Was Aerial Assist Better than Ultimate Ascent?
For all the people that claim Arial Assist raised the floor:
The floor did not have better robots this year. They were just rewarded more for doing less. I would not call that raising the floor. In fact, it actually lowers it in some senses, because: a) Teams were encouraged not to use some of their more sophisticated mechanisms because they weren't reliable enough b) If this type of game continues, teams will start to realize that they should not strive for lofty goals, and instead simply grab the low hanging fruit and get tons of driver practice. I know my team had a lot of people who really pushed to have a defense/assist robot, even though we were fairly confident in our ability to build a shooter. This limits teams and doesn't really help FRC get more competitive. Now, don't misunderstand me and think that I want the lower tier robots to be unable to score points. It's critical that they are able to feel important to their alliance. But we need to make sure that we are always incentivising teams to go for more difficult strategies, instead of making it so that only 1 robot (usually) can be the finisher and 1 robot (usually) has to be a dedicated inbounder/defender that never shoots the ball. |
|
#120
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Was Aerial Assist Better than Ultimate Ascent?
Quote:
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|