Would you like End Game back?

[bduddy]

Autonomous has gotten easier pretty much every single year since 2005, down to the point where last year the GDC basically said "Just drive forward, please, we'll give you points!" and a lot of teams at early regionals couldn't even do that. Unless something big changes, endgame autonomous is a long way from feasibility.

[Jefferson]

Originally Posted by bduddy

Autonomous has gotten easier pretty much every single year since 2005, down to the point where last year the GDC basically said "Just drive forward, please, we'll give you points!" and a lot of teams at early regionals couldn't even do that. Unless something big changes, endgame autonomous is a long way from feasibility.

I'm guessing the drive forward and score ruling came out of the GDC being tired of seeing matches where 6 robots sat on the field doing nothing for all of auto.

An autonomous endgame may be a terrible idea and completely unwatchable except for the very highest level of competition, but it sounds like a fun challenge to me.

[Jacob Bendicksen]

Originally Posted by Jefferson

An autonomous endgame may be a terrible idea and completely unwatchable except for the very highest level of competition, but it sounds like a fun challenge to me.

Then again, some would have said the same about Aerial Assist. I heard some people compare the gameplay at early events to 'little kids playing soccer,' but by the time Einstein came around, it was arguably the most nail-biting series of matches in recent memory.

[GeeTwo]

Absa-fraggin-lutely! A major part of engineering is compromise among competing priorities, and AA didn't provide that.

[Gregor]

Originally Posted by GrifBot

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?

Whereas in 2014 there were no teams that just sat there for 2 minutes and did nothing?

[Caleb Sykes]

Originally Posted by GeeTwo

Absa-fraggin-lutely! A major part of engineering is compromise among competing priorities, and AA didn't provide that.

Your robot could do everything in the game really well? Without sacrificing the ability to do other things even better?

If not, you had to make compromise among competing priorities.

[g_sawchuk]

Originally Posted by Gregor

Whereas in 2014 there were no teams that just sat there for 2 minutes and did nothing?

No matter what you're going to make the game and it's specifics, you're always going to have a few of those people. However, by making the game one set task, with a few role options, teams focus on one task, and that task only, making more robots able to compete, run and/or do something.

[GeeTwo]

Originally Posted by Caleb Sykes

Your robot could do everything in the game really well? Without sacrificing the ability to do other things even better?

If not, you had to make compromise among competing priorities.

Our robot certainly did everything it had to do much better than our previous two robots did their things. Our only significant points of compromise had to do with the time and skill constraints, not meeting the challenge itself. The AA robot just had to drive and manipulate the ball. As far as size, we optimized solely on ball manipulation and the essentially square dimensions were easy to build a drive system for. Our biggest failing for AA was in mis-analyzing the game - we had no idea it would be so strong on defense, so we opted for maneuverability over torque. There would have been equal (or perhaps less) challenge putting a 6-wheel shifting drive under the ball handler than the mecanum was.

Perhaps most telling as to the "lack of challenge" in the game mechanics was that a kitbot sporting three 20" plywood walls could be both fair on offense and quite good on defense. If it was geared down a bit from the kit, had a good driver and a taller wall, it could be a defensive nightmare. And it wasn't even waiving any endgame bonus to do this!

And to reference another recent one, yes, there were robots even in AA that sat there and did nothing for two minutes, especially in the first few rounds.

[TDav540]

I think that the endgame should return. As many have mentioned before, the ability to swing the score at the end of the match is an important part of the endgame. Watching the Einstein Matches, one could tell in most games that whichever team scored the first assist-loaded ball was going to win the match. If there was an endgame, who knows? 1114 could have jumped on top of the truss, scored 50 points, and won the series for all we know.

I also think that endgames allow for more amazing, inspirational designs with greater variety than in a game without an endgame. For example, those of you who saw team 3624, the Thundercolts (Dix Hills, NY), in 2013 at the Virginia Regional and Long Island Regional, they had an amazing robot. From the start of the match it began climbing the pyramid, shifting it's weight and position to slowly reach the top. It was one of the most amazing robots at the competition, and one that left an impression on all of my teammates. That type of robot, one that very few had ever thought of, is something an endgame can create very well. After all, we're here to inspire kids about STEM right?

For those reasons, I support the return of the endgame.

[Alex2614]

I originally hated that there was no endgame.

However, I have since changed my mind. After going through a couple days of our first event, I found that the gameplay ran much smoother, and it was much easier for the crowd to follow.

I realized that it was much better for the gameplay to continue, rather than being interrupted by this "other" task that was completely unrelated to the game.

That being said, I think that there were a couple end-games that were done well (Rebound Rumble, Overdrive), but most of them, while they were fun to watch, were also kind of whacky now that I think about it because it had absolutely nothing to do with the game. It made the gameplay in many games very confusing in the last 20 or 30 seconds because you would have some robots continuing to do what they were, and some doing this other task. It interrupted the gameplay. As far as FIRST's goal of making FIRST more accessible and understandable and marketable to the "general public" or the "civies" as I call them, removing the endgame was a good move.

I also hated when the endgame was worth more than the game itself. When an alliance could essentially be terrible throughout the whole match, and win in the last couple seconds by completing one task before the other team did. While it was exciting at times, it also led to some teams making it to the eliminations that probably didn't deserve to be there. When the robot could really only do one thing well, and they end up in the top 8. Lunacy comes to mind especially... Not trying to be mean, but rather realistic.

[stufflikethat]

I would love an endgame back. Pretty cool game imo would be aerial assist with climbing the pyramid and taking out the truss.

The end game adds another level for the better teams. It makes the game more approachable for all. Back in 2013 many teams chose to keep shooting and just climb for 10 the really good teams like 254 and 1114 said lets go climb and get the extra 30 points plus the 20 point dump.

[IronicDeadBird]

Oh I am going to love this conversation but I will start by not reading any of it to get my initial impression and then I will edit it after what I see.

FRC has always had this certain game "feel". To be honest the only components that I feel are required for that "feel" I get from standing behind students and yelling are auton, and tele op. I participated in FLL if you haven't done that when competing you take your robot to the field put it down and press start. BEST never had the robot to robot to interaction. FIRST has done a great job with having an exciting game to view between the size of these robots, robot to robot interaction, and robot to environment action it feels exciting. That being said you don't need to have an end game to still provide that same feel.
Outside of that End Games do provide additional engineering challenges which is great for STEM. It "GENERALLY" will provide for more depth in strategy. Anyway time to read the posts and realize how ignorant I was...

EDIT: After viewing what everyone has said I still am standing by the fact that you don't need an END Game for a good match. Seeing something mechanically similar to an endgame a window of opportunity or a window to score in a different way that is high risk high reward. I always thought it was a shame that the hot goals were used in one portion of the game, why not make it so the Hot goals were toggled on randomly throughout the match and bonus points added then. I will admit that when I started the END game was the equalizer. If you don't have the sharpest auton you could make it up with a good end game.
Anyway my proposal to the GDC you know as some random dude on the internet with all the mad street cred that comes from it. Design instead of an End game include in the matches periods that slightly deviate from a task in a high risk high reward manner. Make the hot goals random during tele op (balanced of course.) Signal mini bots to climb at any point in a match to make shot calling more dynamic. Challenge teams to instead of designing for such a routine system of Auton->Tele Op->End add a wild card to Tele Op lets mix it up.

[Dunngeon]

Originally Posted by TDav540

I think that the endgame should return. As many have mentioned before, the ability to swing the score at the end of the match is an important part of the endgame. Watching the Einstein Matches, one could tell in most games that whichever team scored the first assist-loaded ball was going to win the match. If there was an endgame, who knows? 1114 could have jumped on top of the truss, scored 50 points, and won the series for all we know.

I also think that endgames allow for more amazing, inspirational designs with greater variety than in a game without an endgame. For example, those of you who saw team 3624, the Thundercolts (Dix Hills, NY), in 2013 at the Virginia Regional and Long Island Regional, they had an amazing robot. From the start of the match it began climbing the pyramid, shifting it's weight and position to slowly reach the top. It was one of the most amazing robots at the competition, and one that left an impression on all of my teammates. That type of robot, one that very few had ever thought of, is something an endgame can create very well. After all, we're here to inspire kids about STEM right?

For those reasons, I support the return of the endgame.

I personally don't find robots that seek ONLY to complete the endgame inspirational. Those I find inspirational are the robots that can complete aspects of the game at a very high level.

A lot of teams had the climber come up in brainstorming, but a lot of teams also realized they could easily score more than 30 pts by playing the game in teleop

Granted I've only experienced the 2013 and 2014 seasons, but I'd really like to see the end game come back. It adds an extra challenge for teams and an element of excitement to the end of a game, especially if the alliance scores are close.

The end game element is a bit 'easier' for higher-level teams or bigger teams because of experience or dividing-and-conquering, but my rookie team was even able to rig up a 10-point hang for those extra points in Ultimate Ascent, which really came in handy when our shooter wasn't working.

The problem with an end game in a team-based challenge like Aerial Assist is that if one team focuses mainly on the end-game, the alliance as a whole loses out on a whole ton of points because that one robot isn't involved in the main game scoring. I'm thinking about robots that would take the entire match to climb to the 30 on the pyramid in 2013... In a team based game like Aerial Assist, are those points really worth it compared to the points that could be earned if they played the main game?

(...maybe the end game should come back just to make teams really think about that question.)

[safiq10]

I see everyone is posting their thought and thought I'd chime in my own thoughts about the subject.

I personally enjoyed this year's no end-game, It provided a much more tense game throughout the match and competition making much more diverse and fun. I know their were times when we were in matches that could have swayed either way because we were just points away from each other. I think if they didn't bring end game back I would not be disappointed as long as the game is sufficiently exciting enough.