Would you like End Game back?

[Anupam Goli]

I've always felt that the endgames that don't have anything to do with the main intended objective of the game shouldn't have a place on the field. (2009 is the latest year that I remember had an end game with an objective similar to the regular teleop period). having no end game in 2014 was kind of a breath of fresh air. It created some intense matches that went down to the wire, and there was no clear winner until the end.

I also think FIRST hasn't been able to nail a good end game down properly. 2012 had the best end game in elims, but other than that, they were either undervalued or overvalued. In 2013, you could potentially score more disc points with a simple 10 pt buzzer beater hang and hurling frisbees all match instead of climbing for the 30. In 2011, the minibots were way overvalued, and guaranteed that whoever had a faster trigger finger would win the match, even if they didn't fill the rack up. In 2010, not many teams attempted climbs because on the onset it was only worth as much as 1-2 goals. And in 2009, trading an empty cell for a supercell almost never happened since there wasn't enough time to put the supercell back into play and score.

Maybe if FIRST can come up with a good endgame that is somewhat related to the game played in teleop, and is pretty balanced for the effort it takes, then it would be a good reintroduction of the endgame.

[SenorZ]

In a 3v3 game endgame scoring schemes add an extra dimension to play. In Aerial Assist only two robots were active in any assist, so the third was either playing D or waiting for an inbound.
Bringing back an end game allows a third robot to choose between defense or bonus scoring in the final seconds.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Thad House

By the time teams get to division elims and higher, most teams have usually found the most efficient way to do the endgame. For instance, we saw no 30pt climbs on Einstein in 2013, and no 40 point balances on Einstein in 2012.

I would really hesitate to say that 30 point climbing and triple balancing was not efficient enough for high level play. In fact, in both games these factors made the difference at both the divisional playoff level and the IRI finals. In 2013, one alliance on Einstein had a 30 point climb. At the finals of IRI, where both alliances routinely ran out of discs to score, the alliance with two 30 point climbers beat the alliance with one 30 point climber. In 2012, the finals of multiple divisions were decided by successful or failed triple balances, and IRI was won by the alliance that could still triple balance (Opposing alliances in both the semis and finals substituted in a long backup robot, which had more trouble triple balancing).

The end game also often gives something for teams who want to do "one thing well" to focus on. In most games, you can win events with two scorers. An endgame specialist can make for a great second round pick.

[Oblarg]

Originally Posted by Anupam Goli

I've always felt that the endgames that don't have anything to do with the main intended objective of the game shouldn't have a place on the field. (2009 is the latest year that I remember had an end game with an objective similar to the regular teleop period). having no end game in 2014 was kind of a breath of fresh air. It created some intense matches that went down to the wire, and there was no clear winner until the end.

I'll second this sentiment. I thought the lack of endgame is one of the reasons 2014's game was such a fantastic game to watch.

[cmrnpizzo14]

I really like there being an endgame, or at least another way to score. I feel that the best games were the ones that had 3 separate components (autonomous, teleoperated, and endgame usually) and the alliance that could win 2/3 of these components would win the match. I feel that this way nothing is too over or underrated.

For example, in 2011 the minibots were worth a lot but if you couldn't at least hold pace with the other alliance during auton/teleop then you just wouldn't be able to overcome the points they scored with the logos they would form. Same in 2012 with the bridges. A triple was worth 40 points and a good hybrid was roughly 30 (I know it's not perfect but that was pretty good for an alliance). With 70 points from hybrid and the endgame you could have won most games but if you fell behind in hybrid then you were going to have a battle ahead of you to come back in that match.

[AndreaV]

I don't know if you can call it an endgame, but 2005's "tic tac toe" tetra game element was an interesting challenge.

For those unfamiliar the tetra goals were placed 3 x 3 so that from above, it was like a game of tic-tac-toe with the red or blue tetras on top being the X or O. It lead to the center goal becoming paramount and there was usually a rush at the end to break a row of 3 by topping strategic goals. This was essentially de-scoring, but all the placed tetras still counted for 3 points. While it wan't an alternative way to score (like 2013's 10 pt hang) it was points that were counted at the end, and could determine the outcome of a match.

It was sort of an endgame,but the intended endgame was to have all 3 robots back in front of the driver station and behind a line. the actual end game took away from the main game, and only rewarded a measly 10 points. I wouldn't mind seeing it not included.


FRC has come a long way since 2005 when I started, and the quality of robots has gone up drastically thanks to Vex and Andymark. I would love to see a similar game mechanic with today's robots.


2007 had a similar thing with the rack.. but that was messy.

[headlight]

Originally Posted by AndreaV

I don't know if you can call it an endgame, but 2005's "tic tac toe" tetra game element was an interesting challenge.

<snip>

I like the idea of an "inline" endgame, essentially raising the stakes/scoring near the end of the game or in a certain time frame.

An interesting 2014 endgame might have been that a ball is worth 20 points if it is launched before the buzzer and touches the ground on the opposite side of the truss after the buzzer. It would also be the only time a ball is allowed to be scored over the truss twice.

[Jefferson]

I'm itching for an autonomous endgame.

Who's with me?

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by Jefferson

I'm itching for an autonomous endgame.

Whose with me?

I think it's a very cool idea if done right.

[Jefferson]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

I think it's a very cool idea if done right.

That's true for any endgame, but it's definitely more difficult to "get right" if it's autonomous. A lot of variables to consider in robot/game piece position/heading.

It could add so much additional strategy to the end of teleop. There is also the opportunity for some real autonomous defense that is entirely absent most years.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by AndreaV

It was sort of an endgame,but the intended endgame was to have all 3 robots back in front of the driver station and behind a line. the actual end game took away from the main game, and only rewarded a measly 10 points. I wouldn't mind seeing it not included.

And I can't even think of ONE match where that was attempted, let alone completed. Everybody was playing the alternative: Score more, go for rows/disruption of rows.

[Briansmithtown]

Sometimes endgames are god. But recently it seems more and more teams build robots to compete for the endgame, and just sit on the field for 2 minutes waiting for the funky noise to play. Very boring, too bland.

[g_sawchuk]

I would hate to have an autonomous end game for one. Do you know how much time some teams would spend lining up their robot via remote control for that. It would definitely take away from the actual game. A robot with lots of sensors that can self navigate and tell itself what to do when would win that best as no prep would be needed for the autonomous end game. Imagining hard coded autonomous end game robots. I assume their would be more robots running into each other than usual for that, messing up their programs for sure. A robot could only be successful with that relying solely on sensors. It would be a challenge.

[Jefferson]

Originally Posted by GrifBot

It would be a challenge.

Exactly why it would be so fun. It would be a monster programming and strategic challenge.

You could have the last 30 seconds be optionally autonomous activated by the team and indicated on the robot, but the game stays the same. Points scored autonomously would obviously be worth more.

The devil is in the details, but it I think it would be a lot of fun.

[g_sawchuk]

Originally Posted by Jefferson

Exactly why it would be so fun. It would be a monster programming and strategic challenge.

You could have the last 30 seconds be optionally autonomous activated by the team and indicated on the robot, but the game stays the same. Points scored autonomously would obviously be worth more.

The devil is in the details, but it I think it would be a lot of fun.

But would it take away from the focus on the actual game, and would people operating remotely mess up those working autonomously? That is the question. Or would the autonomous end game component be completely ignored if the points for doing the task were too little?