The New Endgame

[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

[dgsav24]

There can be endgame-ish rules that are also spectator friendly. For example, this year they could have made a shot over the truss in the last 5 seconds be worth double the points. This way, it adds even more motivation to get the last second buzzer beater. It could add even more suspense and anticipation as a spectator, knowing a 20 point truss shot could be scored. This could also bring in new strategies. Should I shoot now for 10 points and attempt a shot on the end goal, or wait a little and get the last second truss shot to score 20 points?

[sgreco]

Having never really understood a casual viewer's perspective, I think the endgame adds a lot to strategy and to the excitement of the game.

The best mix between keeping the game like a spectator sport and not eliminating the endgame altogether would be to create an endgame like the one in 2008. Capping the track ball used the same game pieces that had been used all along, it just used them in a slightly different way. Climbing, balancing, Minibot races etc. may seem too arbitrary to make sense in the mind of a casual spectator.

[E_puello]

My idea for a cool endgame would:

30 seconds before the match a single white ball worth double points when scored is placed on top of the truss. The only way to get it down is to hit it with you own alliance colored ball. since there is only one it the alliances would have to be quick to gain possession.

[Navid Shafa]

Originally Posted by E_puello

My idea for a cool endgame would:

30 seconds before the match a single white ball worth double points when scored is placed on top of the truss. The only way to get it down is to hit it with you own alliance colored ball. since there is only one it the alliances would have to be quick to gain possession.

Really creative, and feasible. The point values might have to be played with a bit, but I like the flair!

[asid61]

Endgames are good for faster games such as Ultimate Ascent where points were scored constantly. Then the hang was an unrelated thing that could swing the match, and had different point levels. It really added to the suspense if you weren't sure how many points a team would get, especially waiting for the official score to pop up.
However, for this year there was no need. Teams only made a few cycles each match anyway (3-4), so the last cycle was really the endgame.