This year's "game" is a job, not a game

[Koko Ed]

I'm actually surprised how much I enjoy this game during the elims. It's really intense out there. Friday drags on and Thursday is a total bore but I have to give it credit, it's better than I thought it would be.

[Koko Ed]

At GTR Central someone brought a drone to the event and I thought " that's what this game needs. attack drones unleashed in the last 30 seconds to knock over stacks with elements on the robot to slap them down and drone dogfights everywhere! Now that's excitement!"

[Chris Hibner]

I hate to say it, but I found 2001 to be more entertaining than this year. At least that year you had the variable of stopping the clock and the race to see if you could complete the task faster. Additionally, in order to get max points the teams on the field had to work together whereas this year you typically have robots doing their own thing in their corner of the field. And the playoff format this year: zzzzzzzz.

Originally Posted by EricH

No it isn't.

Not at all.

Not in the SLIGHTEST.

There is a game so bad (or so ill-documented, your choice) that FIRST doesn't post its summary on their website in the archives. Fortunately, or not, some documentation is preserved by the TechnoKats History Project.

The name? Diabolical Dynamics. The year? 2001. The game? Score playground balls into goals, balance said goals on a seesaw, and get as many of your alliance to the far end of the field as possible before hitting the E-stop for a multiplier. Did I mention that it was played 4v0, with no second alliance on the field?


BTW, #2 on that list happens to be Lunacy (2009). This is a distant #3 at best. I'm still trying to decide whether I prefer Stack Attack (2003) or this game for the #3 spot on the "worst game" list.

[Dan Petrovic]

My biggest complaint this year doesn't really have much to do with the game itself, but more about the robot rules:

The 78" height limit. Keep it at 60" so that we don't have to struggle to get our robot through doors, please.

While Recycle Rush isn't my favorite, it certainly isn't the worst. At least you can see the progression of the scores and the huge point swings, unlike Lunacy where you can hardly see who's in the lead. Matches aren't decided in the first 5 seconds like Zone Zeal was (although it might turn into that at higher levels of play) and the whole game doesn't stray away from its original point - stacking boxes - and dissolve into a brutal King of the Hill like Stack Attack.

Also, I really don't like the hokey themes. The terms "Moon Rock" and "Litter" make me cringe.

[jman4747]

I know FIRST wants to draw more excitement and attention to Engineering/STEM but it's still engineering. You probably won't be working on a robot disc shooter or foam/exercise ball thrower ever. You might work on the machine that forms the plastic for the disc, or test materials to find the best composition of plastic to make it out of. Maybe you would prefer working on the power system for the plant or analyzing and optimizing the work flow?

Point is if you can't handle this maybe slightly less exciting game you get your excitement from the wrong place. I'm excited about getting twice as good at Labview than I was in 2014 ago and that my team can finally use vision processing. I'm excited our team gets to run and compete in FRC with more than $1,000 spending money this year and that we will be mentoring an FTC team starting this summer.

So thank you GDC for more great learning experiences and a chance to apply my technical skills with a team, and for giving me an amazing excuse to hang out with so many engineers.

[KelliV]

This is just me speaking from a spectator. I have NOT built a robot this year. I went to an event last weekend for fun and to take a break from a film project I am working on and this is what I thought:

If math and science isn't your thing, visit the pits and see some robots quickly and then go home and work on something else. Come back next year. The straight up sporting feel of the game just isn't there if you don't "get" the scoring right away. It's not like many of the past games where anyone off the street could walk in and be able to follow what's going on.

The game may not be for everyone but I can kind of see its merits in teaching kids to play against them-self and try to make the best robot they can, then beat that robot. Always try to achieve higher scores and do better each match.

All that being said, I wish this years game had more action, had more interaction between teams, and had a less difficult seeding system. I started to try and figure that out and no amounts of coffee could make that happen without sitting down with a manual. I'll give it another shot in a few weeks and hopefully my thoughts on the game will change but who knows.

[robochick1319]

I think the issue with this game is it's appeal to non-FIRST community members. In the past, saying "our robots shoots basketballs/frisbees/gigantic balls" was a much more approachable game. People understood how that could be "sport" and it was much easier to demonstrate in a variety of environments.

When I explain this game in the most exciting way I can, I actually see a little disappointment on people's faces like, "Oh, it stacks boxes?"

We find it fun to watch because after 6 weeks of scratching our heads it's cool to see how other teams have dealt with what is a pretty big technical challenge. We find the elims exciting because it is our game, our world.

TL;DR It's not a bad game. It's just not the best game to appeal to non-FIRST people. Need to brainstorm some cool ways to demo it in the summer/fall.....

[mac]

Originally Posted by Sperkowsky

I'm tired of these negative threads about this year's game. Go complain somewhere else the gdc tries their best. I'm not a big fan of the game but I'm not going to complain on the Internet when there's no way the game is going to change.

Is it OK to not like anything under the sun. Or do equate not liking with negativity. Thomas (just give me a crabcake) McCubbin

[Brian C]

Originally Posted by EricH

No it isn't.

Not at all.

Not in the SLIGHTEST.

There is a game so bad (or so ill-documented, your choice) that FIRST doesn't post its summary on their website in the archives.

The name? Diabolical Dynamics. The year? 2001. The game? Score playground balls into goals, balance said goals on a seesaw, and get as many of your alliance to the far end of the field as possible before hitting the E-stop for a multiplier. Did I mention that it was played 4v0, with no second alliance on the field?

I respectfully disagree!

I believe the 2001 game was actually the beginning of teams sharing information during the build season. Many teams showcased their machines and their strategies early on in their build in an effort to create an alliance where each robot performed a specific task very well. Wildstang and their teeter-totter controlling ramp 'bot comes to mind.

I readily admit that I was not overly thrilled with this years game. However, after attending NYC last weekend I've changed my mind. As Koko Ed said earlier, qualifying is a drawn out process but Eliminations....er....... Playoffs is definitely a much more exciting time.

I was actually surprised this year that more teams did not share their concepts earlier during build in a similar concept of creating complementary robots.

The majority of teams that exist today only understand an offense/defense type of game because that is all they have seen for over a decade. I believe that the game this year threw many of them a curveball in that they may not have been able to wrap their heads around a minimally interactive game.

Now I have my own thoughts as to a best vs worst list of games but I'll keep that to myself. As they say everyone has an opinion and "your mileage may vary"

[kmusa]

Originally Posted by BHS_STopping

... I've been racking my brain the last 2.5 months to try and solve all of these brand new problems. I don't think I've ever had to think as hard over my last ten years in FIRST as I've had to this year. I suppose that's worth something.

This.

The engineering this year has been difficult. Watching the effort, comprehension, and growth of the students this year has been amazing.

I get it that this year's competition is harder to watch by or describe to the general public. I wouldn't want it to happen often (2 out of 3, 3 of 5 would be too much), but I'll tolerate it occasionally, for how it inspired our students this year.

Note to self for next year - remember to think inside AND outside of the box.

[mac]

Originally Posted by SousVide

I tell them it's kinda like a bunch of other non-contact competitive sports while waxing philosophy... golf, long jump, gymnastics, pole-vaulting, ring toss, javelin throw... You are trying to perform from a rehearsed routine and trying to achieve perfection... You are competing with yourself - it's like life, etc. etc.

I've said this same in other threads. This year is a tough sell for my sponsors and parents. The students get it, they build the robot, they have a competition to get ready for. They are ready to celebrate Robotics and Science and Engineering and GP with all of the other teams. It will be fun. But I also have to be able to sell it to their parents - so that they don't yank the students and put them into something else. I have to be able to sell it to my sponsors - most of these guys/gals get sports easy - I can sell them Frisbee, Basketball, Soccer, Nascar.

GDC has a tough job to do and they get beat up for it - it's a thankless job that is sometimes under-appreciated. And yes, it's my job to sell my team and to get "mo money" so that the team can continue to build robots, build leaders. I feel like I'm apologizing or just plain making excuses this year.

Look, it's a hard hill to climb to get people to understand FIRST - every single year. Some years, it's easier. I can just yell "Basketball" and eyes will light up rightaway.

It just feels like a bigger hill to climb this year.

When someone at GDC stays up to 3am during 2010 "Breakout". Comes up with a math problem that was 8 mm long to determine how long it should take, to return, the soccer ball to the field; algorithm. We the simple people just said 11 seconds. The drawings for making the pyramid did not make sense to my engineer teacher or his carpenter son, 2013 game. The static bowl game in 2009, that I got shock a lot doing field reset. The GDC should be big to. To take a few lumps. Thomas (just give me a crabcake) McCubbin

[The_ShamWOW88]

Originally Posted by Sperkowsky

Im not wanting to start a war I simply want to drop the atomic bomb to end it.

Because you don't agree with other opinions...

The thing to remember is there will always be two+ sides to every argument and nobody will ever 100% agree...

Attacking others for differing opinions only makes you look silly....

[pmangels17]

I have to be honest, I really do not like this game. I think the field of robots is spread so much wider this year than others between the best teams and the worst teams. Also, as previously mentioned, it's hard to get the game to appeal to people outside of FIRST. And, for me at least, it's painfully boring to watch most quals matches, though elims can get pretty cool when an alliance really grooves.

That being said, there are a lot of things that this game does right. Primarily, I think the eliminations format is a step in the right direction. The switch from "win-loss-tie 2 out of 3 head to heads" to a round robin system is something that I like very much. Here's why:

Suppose somehow we had an objective way of measuring which elims alliances are the best (obviously this is an idealized situation). Now suppose that at a given event, alliance 1, 2, 7, and 8 are objectively the best alliances. In a round-robin style format these alliances can all advance, and the best four alliances move on to the semis, instead of two of them getting eliminated in quarters. The same logic applies to semis. I am not pretending to have all the answers, and I'm not sure how we could combine a round-robin playoff model with the win-loss-tie format (because, it is a competition after all, and there are and should be winners and losers), but I do thoroughly believe that this is a big step in the right direction for FIRST.

Oh, and if you're still reading this, here's one more good thing about RR. This game has changed the way teams think about drivetrains. Tank drive is still fine, but this is a year where omni-directional drives can really own it. I love how many stupidly simple drives there are this year, and I look forward to how teams wrangle their newfound loves for low-traction omnidirectional drives (H-drive, mecanum, etc) with the fact that next year there might be robot-robot contact again.

tl;dr: I really don't like this game, but I do like round-robin elims and drivetrains

[IronicDeadBird]

If good game design was easy then I would be a billionaire making the next hit video game.
If you strongly believe that this years game is bad I understand that, I'm not a huge fan of the game but I respect the GDC with their consistent ability to deliver a game internationally that provides everything that FIRST stands for. It is absolutely true that some years are better then others. It is absolutely fine to provide feedback. However real people, real humans put their time into making these games and you should keep that in mind and be polite. The GDC does not have the resources to fully test games the way most games be it video games or board games. They do however have ears as long as we keep the conversation polite I believe they will keep an ear out and open to us.
There is an area for game design on chief delphi if you have an idea for a game bring it over there and it can be turned into a discussion.

[BBray_T1296]

I hope everyone realizes that the Step (and thus separation of the alliances) was added late in the game design process soley due to the constant, incessant moaning and compaining about the defense last year.

Now look at us: complaining about not enough strategy ie. defense.

While both these games may be seen as the two extremes, we asked for it.

I personally see merit in both sides of the arguement about the quality of this year's game, but I cannot help but realize that we brought this on ourselves.