Week 1 Observations

[frasnow]

My life got too busy to continue mentoring, so I've been relegated to the position of robotics fan. The past few years I've really enjoyed cheering on my favorite teams via the webcasts. Based on week 1, I don't think I'll watch much this year. It's not an exciting game.

Every team's playoff strategy: Score the most points in the manner we can, and don't mess up. Maybe try to get the recycling containers in the middle if necessary.

If all the robots are functioning well, as everyone desires in a robotics competition, most of the playoff matches are a forgone conclusion. If it wasn't for mistakes (and robots getting disabled), the top alliance (seeding format pushes the best to the top) should win the majority of regionals and districts. Who wants to cheer for teams to make mistakes or breakdown? Defending against an opponent's strategy should be an important part of every FIRST competition.

Though, I must say I enjoy watching gymnastics and golf, which don't have defense, but usually have very close matches. Perhaps I'll like this game on Einstein.

[IronicDeadBird]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

You can design around the Human Player station vs robot start arrangement in Lunacy, but that doesn't make it an awful game mechanic.

You can recognize the existence of the dogma in 2010 and train your human players to be acutely aware of it, but that doesn't make it a bad game mechanic.

You can strategize around the 10 protected areas of the field in Logomotion, but that doesn't make it a bad game mechanic.

You can recognize how the scoring weights in 2013 strongly favored throwing discs over Level 3 climbing in 95/100 cases, but you can still wish FIRST would have weighted the scores differently.

You can play a slower but less ambiguous assist cycle in Aerial Assist so referees accurately count your assists, but that doesn't make the scoring method of assists by the referees a bad idea.

Litter was seen as an issue robots would run into since Kickoff. Without looking at it, I think Karthik had mobility around litter as one of the top 4 requirements for playing the game. Litter was expected to be a total pain to work with.

Game design has to serve many masters, and this makes game design difficult. Is it a game teams enjoy designing for? Is it a game teams enjoy playing? Is it a game that spectators enjoy watching? Is it a game that "serves itself" well (not allowing for rulings resulting from a wide gap of interpretations, having an intelligent seeding system, having a safe and expedient field cycle time)? Is it a game that fulfills the mission of FIRST and FRC? While the game design committee may have different priorities (serving one master before the others) this is the order of importance I perceive as a former student and coach in the organization.

These are all of the masters an FRC game has to serve in order to be considered a success. One of the reasons Aim High and Ultimate Ascent make the top of the lists for game quality is because it manages to serve all of the masters with varying levels. The reason Lunacy scores so low? It was not fun to design for or play and wasn't easy to watch. Aerial Assist was fun to play and watch, but designing for it was pretty boring and the game did not serve itself very well. Recycle Rush may have been a fun game to design for and serves itself pretty well, but it sucks to play and watch.

Enjoy is subjective to the person in question. Some people enjoy candy crush, a bright vibrant game full of making things match. What happens when those things match? You are rewarded with fun animations and exciting sounds.
Other people enjoy Chess, a quiet game where focus and strategy is important, and aside from the act of reaching over and taking a piece off the board that belongs to your opponent there isn't much in the way of rewarding the player for doing well.
Recycle Rush would have been a great game to watch except unfortunately the kids who decided to play it are smart...
You could equate this game to watching someone swing at a pinata with a blindfold. Except higher level teams have transparent blind folds so they can see what they are doing. The rewarding aspect of this game was when you created a 6 stack that feelings of accomplishment. The fun was supposed to come from the suspense and tension in creating stacks. The issue is that teams just did it too well. 148 has an amazing robot but seeing robin in action didn't exactly have me holding my breath. I honestly wouldn't say this game is bad, at all. I would just say it isn't the right kind of game considering the audience.

Translating whats being said into shorter phrases.
Jenga sucks to watch and play when you are playing with people who are perfect at it because the fun comes from the falling Jenga stacks
Recycle rush sucks to watch and play when you are playing with higher level teams because the fun comes from falling tote stacks.

[rich2202]

Originally Posted by MechEng83

It was at ININD.

At future regionals, bring along a printed copy of Q337

Q. The response to Q214/Q69 says only G9 items may be used on the field to configure the robot. No tethering is allowed. Is there an exception for 5.5.5 Match Replays (restarts)? If not, will teams be allowed time to take their robot back to the pit to put the robot back into starting configuration?
2015-02-09 by FRC2202

A. Yes, exceptional circumstances, e.g. MATCH Replays or Back-to-back Playoff MATCHES, will result in special accommodations for minor ROBOT maintenance like resetting a ROBOT'S configuration, minor repairs, trading out a battery, etc.

https://frc-qa.usfirst.org/Question/...ll-teams-be-al

[MechEng83]

Originally Posted by rich2202

At future regionals, bring along a printed copy of Q337

Wow. I wish we had known that. Seems like a very non-obvious place to clarify something which potentially results in a red card.

[excel2474]

That red card in Indy didn't exactly put the "grace" in gracious professionalism.

[AllenGregoryIV]

Originally Posted by IronicDeadBird

Translating whats being said into shorter phrases.
Jenga sucks to watch and play when you are playing with people who are perfect at it because the fun comes from the falling Jenga stacks
Recycle rush sucks to watch and play when you are playing with higher level teams because the fun comes from falling tote stacks.

I don't know about anyone else but falling stacks weren't fun to watch this weekend they were painful. I know all the work that these teams put into getting their robots to work, when 118's stack fell in the playoffs at Dallas it wasn't enjoyable for me, it hurt. I am not really looking forward to a season of feeling bad when things go wrong. I love defense and I like cheering for the underdogs, however I'm not cheering for gravity and momentum this year.

[Boltman]

Originally Posted by AllenGregoryIV

I don't know about anyone else but falling stacks weren't fun to watch this weekend they were painful. I know all the work that these teams put into getting their robots to work, when 118's stack fell in the playoffs at Dallas it wasn't enjoyable for me, it hurt. I am not really looking forward to a season of feeling bad when things go wrong. I love defense and I like cheering for the underdogs, however I'm not cheering for gravity and momentum this year.

Make a better stack. Not a gravity issue, a better stack issue or better driving issue.

[IronicDeadBird]

Originally Posted by AllenGregoryIV

I don't know about anyone else but falling stacks weren't fun to watch this weekend they were painful. I know all the work that these teams put into getting their robots to work, when 118's stack fell in the playoffs at Dallas it wasn't enjoyable for me, it hurt. I am not really looking forward to a season of feeling bad when things go wrong. I love defense and I like cheering for the underdogs, however I'm not cheering for gravity and momentum this year.

Enjoyment is once again subject to the person. I shouldn't say falling stacks are what cause fun its when stacks are teetering precariously or they look like they are going to fall over. The suspense that comes from seeing something like a stack about to fall is fun, having it actually fall of course its not fun.
I personally don't really enjoy things going to plan as much as I enjoy being able to recover after a failure and perform well. Comebacks are fun to watch for me.

[mwmac]

Recommended name change: Schadenfreude Rush!

[Amanda Morrison]

Originally Posted by IronicDeadBird

Recycle rush sucks to watch and play when you are playing with higher level teams because the fun comes from falling tote stacks.

Enjoyment is indeed subjective, yet I personally disagree with your reasoning.

The FRC community is not used to seeing task-based games without active defense, or any other kind of incredibly significant defensive challenges against our alliances while accomplishing these tasks. (Noodles being thrown are not nearly as significant as, say, a team blocking your shots or pulling a goal away from you.) In the past we've had difficult game pieces, but had rules against de-scoring or had safety zones designed to assist offensive gameplay. The combination of repetitive tasks, without direct competition, match after match... you're only working to beat your best time. Yes, the tasks themselves are not easy. Yet each year we're given difficult tasks alongside the pressure of active defense, and with that precedent I believe this year many of us feel that something is lacking. In your example you list both chess and Jenga as examples, yet I feel a better example is the game Perfection.

So for many in our community, racing against a clock is less thrilling than directly racing against, say, HOT Team 67. Why? Because one is absolutely terrifying to play against year after year and one is - well, a clock.

"Skills challenge" games are not new to FIRST, although it's been about 14 years since it was last tried. 2001 featured a similar game style with a race against the clock. Reviews from participants will vary, with some considering it one of the very best games and some, among the worst. If you have not watched that game, check out this video for what is considered one of the most exciting matches that year. Maybe it gets your heart pounding - maybe it doesn't.

So my TL;DR is: High achievement of teams on the field is not what makes it less "fun" to watch for many people, IMO - it is the lack of direct competition for this achievement (to which we've become accustomed in past FRC games).

Additionally, as a spectator I did not enjoy the simultaneous field action. I found it difficult to watch both sides of the field and truly keep track of what was happening unless I was watching the zones closest to the landfill. This type of game may be exciting for FLL, but for me it doesn't seem to scale well for our larger robots.

[IronicDeadBird]

Originally Posted by Amanda Morrison

Enjoyment is indeed subjective, yet I personally disagree with your reasoning.

The FRC community is not used to seeing task-based games without active defense, or any other kind of incredibly significant defensive challenges against our alliances while accomplishing these tasks. (Noodles being thrown are not nearly as significant as, say, a team blocking your shots or pulling a goal away from you.) In the past we've had difficult game pieces, but had rules against de-scoring or had safety zones designed to assist offensive gameplay. The combination of repetitive tasks, without direct competition, match after match... you're only working to beat your best time. Yes, the tasks themselves are not easy. Yet each year we're given difficult tasks alongside the pressure of active defense, and with that precedent I believe this year many of us feel that something is lacking. In your example you list both chess and Jenga as examples, yet I feel a better example is the game Perfection.

So for many in our community, racing against a clock is less thrilling than directly racing against, say, HOT Team 67. Why? Because one is absolutely terrifying to play against year after year and one is - well, a clock.

"Skills challenge" games are not new to FIRST, although it's been about 14 years since it was last tried. 2001 featured a similar game style with a race against the clock. Reviews from participants will vary, with some considering it one of the very best games and some, among the worst. If you have not watched that game, check out this video for what is considered one of the most exciting matches that year. Maybe it gets your heart pounding - maybe it doesn't.

So my TL;DR is: High achievement of teams on the field is not what makes it less "fun" to watch for many people, IMO - it is the lack of direct competition for this achievement (to which we've become accustomed in past FRC games).

Additionally, as a spectator I did not enjoy the simultaneous field action. I found it difficult to watch both sides of the field and truly keep track of what was happening unless I was watching the zones closest to the landfill. This type of game may be exciting for FLL, but for me it doesn't seem to scale well for our larger robots.

Full disclosure that perfection reference got me right in the nostalgia gland. While I did list chess and Jenga as games I meant to use them to portray examples of games where the "fun" comes from very different means. Neither are very good comparisons to this years game at all. Man I got to go see if I still have perfection laying around somewhere...
Anyway
I did say that this game was good (in the sense of its level of design is very good its a smart game) it is just that it is the wrong audience. This kind of PvE game when you are racing the clock is best experienced when it is one person against a clock not 6 people against a clock. When you play perfection you are the one in the tense position, if you watch someone play perfection its less tense because you don't actually have to do anything.
I phrased it poorly, high level teams don't make this boring. The difficulty of the game doesn't scale up to the level of high level teams and provide them with the challenge that excites the viewer or team. Also that is only one of the reasons why this isn't exactly the most spectator friendly game. Field clutter, estimates on live score, no real focus.
Once again though there is still a lot from this game I would like to see the GDC keep in mind or re use for future games.

Also let me make it extremely clear that I mean no disrespect to any high level team

[Mastonevich]

I would like to think that the seeding will be (more) accurate this year because of the "time trial" style of competition. That is a nice side effect.

I did find myself not as engaged.

[notmattlythgoe]

Originally Posted by Mastonevich

I would like to think that the seeding will be (more) accurate this year because of the "time trial" style of competition. That is a nice side effect.

I did find myself not as engaged.

Another thing that will be nice is that the rankings should settle down more and more as the competition goes on. Meaning the top 8 teams should be pretty set towards the last round or 2 of matches.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by notmattlythgoe

Another thing that will be nice is that the rankings should settle down more and more as the competition goes on. Meaning the top 8 teams should be pretty set towards the last round or 2 of matches.

That's what my simulations of it have shown me. Obviously it depends on how many matches teams have and how many teams. But for districts it's accurate for most teams. There's still a bit of schedule element to it but it's nowhere near as bad as the WLT system where a rough schedule could destroy your chances of seeding high.

[notmattlythgoe]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

That's what my simulations of it have shown me. Obviously it depends on how many matches teams have and how many teams. But for districts it's accurate for most teams. There's still a bit of schedule element to it but it's nowhere near as bad as the WLT system where a rough schedule could destroy your chances of seeding high.

That and the top 8 could change quite a bit in the last 2 rounds in the WLT system. Making knowing who is picking and when pretty difficult to determine. This should make it easier to determine where you are picking relatively easy with a couple of matches still left to play. Meaning more time to discuss picks.