Problem's with 2015…

[SousVide]

As a FIRST team, I think there are a lot of neat challenges in this game, in figuring out the strategy, in building the robot (that's always a challenge in an of itself), in pulling the on-field alliances together...

Here's the thing though, we invite parents, sponsors, and guests to the competition, because the action really is the biggest draw for most of the un-initiated. I can always tell them what great value everything that the students get to learn, the value of team play - learning how to be a professional. The competition and the game is where I really get to draw the visitors in. This game, without some type of offense/defense is really hard to understand for my visitors.

Some of my sponsors all but bit their tongue in resisting the urge to tell me this year's game is "lame" - they said "different" and "not quite the same"... but I know the word they were looking for in trying not to insult me.

I completely get it - so I am ok with this year's game; it's just a hard sell when it comes to attracting parents and sponsors. I use the game to get the sponsors through the door - then I bonk them on the head with the truly inspirational stuff - once they have bought into how cool the game is...

Having watched the past 2 weeks - the field is really cluttered, the action is slow, and it's really difficult to explain to my visitors and get them to understand what the robots are doing and why this game.

[mrnoble]

I like that this year's game is easy to score, and that the refs and field judges are not going home emotionally shattered from the experience. I like that every team probably looked at at least one real-world machine as inspiration for their design; this will definitely broaden students' perspectives and options down the road. I like that the game is hard to play well. This means that, as usual, the best design work clearly rises, and there is little left to chance. I like the playoffs. I like not changing bumpers.

I dislike watching. It's not fun as a spectator. I dislike the lack of interaction. The exceptions of coopertition and RC grabbing are rare enough that it reminds me how much more vital matches seem when opposing teams can change how you play throughout the game. And, I dislike the awkward, middle-school style theming.

[SeanFitz]

Here's what I've seen so far.

I like the game from the design standpoint. It's a challenge that hasn't been in previous years that makes Build Season that much more enjoyable.

What I don't like is that we knew on day one of our competition who was going to win. Their average was a good 40 points above second place, and they won every match by a large margin. Once the eliminations came, it was more seeing who would make second place, but even that was skewed as the #2 seed had a 20 point average advantage over the next team. The most exciting part of the finals was one team stealing a can off the step just before another team, in a match that was lost by 60 points with that can doing nothing.

Another note, at the event I was at, the finals were basically 2v2. The third picked alliance on each side say in front of a feeder station and did nothing the entire elimination round. When one team can be completely eliminated from consideration and the alliance still win, it points to a fundamental flaw in the game.

[Jay O'Donnell]

Originally Posted by SeanFitz

Here's what I've seen so far.

I like the game from the design standpoint. It's a challenge that hasn't been in previous years that makes Build Season that much more enjoyable.

What I don't like is that we knew on day one of our competition who was going to win. Their average was a good 40 points above second place, and they won every match by a large margin. Once the eliminations came, it was more seeing who would make second place, but even that was skewed as the #2 seed had a 20 point average advantage over the next team. The most exciting part of the finals was one team stealing a can off the step just before another team, in a match that was lost by 60 points with that can doing nothing.

Another note, at the event I was at, the finals were basically 2v2. The third picked alliance on each side say in front of a feeder station and did nothing the entire elimination round. When one team can be completely eliminated from consideration and the alliance still win, it points to a fundamental flaw in the game.

I don't disagree with any of your points, but these aren't issues that just occurred in 2015. The majority of events I've been to since I started FIRST had a pretty obvious winner. I agree about disliking the third robots not playing at some events. In past years those teams that couldn't contibute to scoring would just play defense, but this year there's no "easy" task. That in itself is a bad game mechanic, but it should hopefully push teams to strive to be better.

[BeardyMentor]

Originally Posted by Jay O'Donnell

In past years those teams that couldn't contribute to scoring would just play defense, but this year there's no "easy" task. That in itself is a bad game mechanic, but it should hopefully push teams to strive to be better.

I disagree. There are some very simple ways you can contribute to alliance success. Anyone can put some forks on the kit bot and push totes onto a scoring platform. With a small amount of practice and work on autonomous, you could have a robot that pushes a RC into the auto zone, and pushes 5-7 totes from the landfill onto a scoring platform. With the low scores during qualification matches, a possible 10-15 points extra would be welcome to almost everyone.

What everyone seems to be confusing with there being no easy task is that going beyond your limits and failing gets you very little benefit this year.

[wireties]

I kind of take the games like contract bidding opportunities. I may not prefer the type of work (or the game) but me and my guys gotta eat (or play the game FIRST puts out). Some years are better than others but you try and put out the best product.

Contrary to some on this feed, our parents and sponsors did enjoy watching the game this year. But I can see how 3rd parties might not enjoy it. Our students definitely enjoyed the engineering challenge and learned much from it. Similar to many on this feed I was a little distraught over the roles played by 3rd teams in the higher seeded alliances. I know any robot can push a tote around but if there is a small chance they get in our way (and slow us down) or they knock over one of our stacks, a few points is just not worth the risk - tough decisions.

[DavidG]

Originally Posted by SeanFitz

Another note, at the event I was at, the finals were basically 2v2. The third picked alliance on each side say in front of a feeder station and did nothing the entire elimination round. When one team can be completely eliminated from consideration and the alliance still win, it points to a fundamental flaw in the game.

By the end of eliminations, our third robot, 4908, was contributing a huge amount to our alliance. They had some robot problems on Friday, but in the final matches they were putting up 2 stacks of 4. It was a joy playing with 4908 and I hope they get the recognition they deserve. I expect them to do very well at Northeastern.

[Pauline Tasci]

Actually I think this game is one of the most intense games there has been recently.
Because you know what... teams actually have to play the game. Teams have to not rely on slowing down the other alliance but outscoring them in the most efficient ways.
For the 2 regionals I have gone to I have helped some teams with their strategy for playoffs and it honestly is a very very strategic game and a very interesting game to play and watch. And the game is progressing well throughout the season so it's just going to get more intense.

By no means is this game perfect, it is far beyond that, game play is weak at lower levels, and there is a huge variation between "good" and "bad" teams. But overall, I think problems arise is every FRC game but I am loving this one.

[Foster]

Originally Posted by SeanFitz

What I don't like is that we knew on day one of our competition who was going to win.

Wow, LookingForward has been unmasked!

While I've seen robots that I've gasped in admiration of, I've never been able to pick the final 6, much less than the final 3. Lets talk off season about your abilities and we can start a Vegas betting pool.

----

What I do like is the "OMG First / GDC has lost their mind " --> "This is a good game". Need a web cam of Franks chair as he slowly relaxes after week 2....

[MrForbes]

I picked two of the three teams on the Alamo regional winning alliance, on the first day...and I also did the same thing at the Central Valley regional. I was present at both events.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by dtengineering

You're welcome to your opinion on boring vs exciting, but it is one that I don't share. This is actually quite an interesting game, and I find it fascinating to see how teams have taken advantage of the new rules.

i like it when the GDC shakes things up a bit.

Jason

This game could have had potential, but it is boring in a particular way. Once I've seen a good robot run a couple of matches, what they do is so repetitive that I have little interest in watching them much until the elim rounds. And then in the elim rounds, I have yet to see a truly "on the edge of your seat" competition. I've watched at least a dozen regionals/districts on webcasts along with attending ours, and unlike last year when I was jumping around a lot, I don't feel like I'm missing much if I skip matches.

[tindleroot]

Originally Posted by BeardyMentor

I disagree. There are some very simple ways you can contribute to alliance success. Anyone can put some forks on the kit bot and push totes onto a scoring platform. With a small amount of practice and work on autonomous, you could have a robot that pushes a RC into the auto zone, and pushes 5-7 totes from the landfill onto a scoring platform. With the low scores during qualification matches, a possible 10-15 points extra would be welcome to almost everyone.

What everyone seems to be confusing with there being no easy task is that going beyond your limits and failing gets you very little benefit this year.

Noodle pushing is another "easy" task that an alliance partner can do. Our third alliance partner at the Kokomo event spent the majority of the matches pushing opponents' noodles into our landfill, swinging the score over 25 points in our favor most of the time.

[The other Gabe]

Originally Posted by Briansmithtown

Your really just watching an aggressive factory line.

may the most aggressive factory win!

In all seriousness, I feel like the game is what you make of it. if you like it and enjoy its strategic moments, it's fun to watch. I will admit though that I miss scouting out teams for weaknesses when they faced us in the next match... taking advantage of those won us matches we could have lost (and now there's no way to do that unless you have a heck of a noodler).

To address your concern about allies. yeah, that's why they made the game this way. you have to coordinate. Sometimes it really sucks (especially since we always seem to have more games with sub-par teams than some of the other teams do. yet and again, maybe we just think that when we aren't performing up to standard, but I digress), but in the end it is somewhat more fair this year than it has been in previous years.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by SousVide

As a FIRST team, I think there are a lot of neat challenges in this game, in figuring out the strategy, in building the robot (that's always a challenge in an of itself), in pulling the on-field alliances together...

Here's the thing though, we invite parents, sponsors, and guests to the competition, because the action really is the biggest draw for most of the un-initiated. I can always tell them what great value everything that the students get to learn, the value of team play - learning how to be a professional. The competition and the game is where I really get to draw the visitors in. This game, without some type of offense/defense is really hard to understand for my visitors.

Some of my sponsors all but bit their tongue in resisting the urge to tell me this year's game is "lame" - they said "different" and "not quite the same"... but I know the word they were looking for in trying not to insult me.

I completely get it - so I am ok with this year's game; it's just a hard sell when it comes to attracting parents and sponsors. I use the game to get the sponsors through the door - then I bonk them on the head with the truly inspirational stuff - once they have bought into how cool the game is...

Having watched the past 2 weeks - the field is really cluttered, the action is slow, and it's really difficult to explain to my visitors and get them to understand what the robots are doing and why this game.

And this points to a bigger problem. Remember that the core notion of FIRST is that we use the sporting game metaphor to reach to a much broader audience of students than just a "science fair." Yes many FIRST members enjoy the engineering/building aspect for itself, but those students would go into STEM majors and careers anyway. They are the core of the teams, but what FIRST wants are the cheerleaders, musicians and actors who have shied away from STEM because it's boring. Adding the readily accessible sporting aspect attracts those students--we should never forget that. In our case, two of our team leaders in the last 3 years joined our team for that reason--they didn't start out wanting to be anything close to an engineer.

This year's game seems to have forgotten the sports aspect (unless maybe if you're a golf fan, but that's a different conversation) and focused too much on the engineering side. The game difficulty is too overwhelming for too many teams and they can't find effective niche strategies that will put them on a potentially winning alliance. (The distribution of the abilities of the teams is going to be very interesting at Champs given this dynamic.)

So I'm sure many of you on CD who are really deeply involved in FRC greatly enjoy the technical challenge of this year's game. You are important members of your teams, but you're not the real target of FRC--it's those kids who start out on the periphery of your team who liked the excitement in the arena who are the real targets.

[Justin Montois]

Originally Posted by themccannman

Lower ranked teams do get helped by good partners, but this is largely negated by their score being averaged over 10 matches. If they put up 180 points in one match, and only 40 in the rest, they have an average of 54, only 14 points higher than without the good match...

At GTR East, 14 points was the difference between the #8 Seed and the #34 seed. In years past, 2 QP's don't come close to swinging things that much.

Further, at GTR Central, teams playing with 1114 seeded on average 18.6 while teams that did not get to play with 1114 seeded on average 25.2

I think your alliance partners have a much larger impact this year than ever before.