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

[BrennanB]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

However I disagree with the 2 categories I've quoted from your list. Completely disengaging the teams is not a useful solution. Robot interaction has been one of the most important aspects of the success of FRC to date. I'm not sure that the bumper issues is so important that to create such a draconian solution--it sounds more like it could be solved in the inspection process (e.g., special help on bumper installation at inspection). The robot damage has been problem. We played with a broken frame clamped together in the final at IE last year. While on one hand that made it more difficult; on the other hand, the team had to work furiously to solve a real world engineering problem of a type that many will face in the field in their careers with real consequences, even lives, as stake. Regardless the robot damage issue can be solved with combinations of safe zones and obstructions that inhibit high speed collisions. (Think traffic calming devices on roads.)

The intent was to point out some good things about this game. It just so happens that the majority of those things were directly related to what people have talked about on CD. (mainly last year as people were more vocal) All the things I stated were solutions, just not necessarily the best one.

As for bumpers... if I had to guess, the removal of them is more related to the zero contact than anything else, but I would still call it a "good thing" about the game.

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

Finally, as I mentioned above I presume that the GDC saw the complaints about the 2014 game on CD and addressed those. That means that we can get somewhere on design of next year's (and future) games by listing issues here.

Ideally yes, the discussion results in a positive outcome for next years game. I will be waiting wait till after championships.

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

And I think we've demonstrated that we are thinking about how to play the game better--see CVR. But look at our collective comments--we're thinking beyond just this year.

You are right, some people are thinking about how to play the game better. It's the people that aren't that worry me.

[Jaywalker1711]

While I think that often people do not understand the game, or any FRC game, I think that there is one thing people do understand: people
There's all this talk about Robot Wars and whatever, and I am sad to hear about that kind of press. But sometimes the media gets it.


This is the front page of the local paper from Monday



There's a whole page later devoted to pictures of the robots and other teams.


See, it's not all about the robots. It's about the people who build the robots. It's not all about the game. It's all about how you play the game

[SousVide]

Originally Posted by jvriezen

Here's something worth trying when you introduce someone to FRC. Instead of starting with explaining the current year game mechanics, explain the key differentiator which you noted above-- the GP and Coopertition. So instead of "This is a great program, our team built a robot to stack totes", say "This is a great program. Teams built their bots in six weeks and right now in the pits there are veteran teams loaning parts, tools and work for other teams to repair and improve their bots, so that all the bots are as good as they can be. That's like a football team loaning a lineman to the opponents!"

I am so glad that you brought this up; Because that is something that we do.

Here's the thing. When I walk up to someone who doesn't know FIRST or Robotics or don't really care that I am talking with them; they already immediately assume that we (he/she and I) do something different - that's pretty much a given. In their minds, most of the time is "Oh, Science, oh Engineering, oh Robots. I can't do that."

First thing I let them know is none of the mentors or students knew anything about FIRST or Robotics when they first started. Heck, some of the students haven't touched a handtool before.

The first thing I want to show them is - we are doing the same thing - not different - find common ground. That gets them on "our" side, then I show them that there's something that we all want and those "GP" things are what we are doing - shared vision.

So, if I am struggling to get off the ground to find common ground - their first impression that we do something different is going to stick...

I think Squillo mentioned that sponsors donate and support out of local pride - I definitely have no doubt about that many other teams (and not just in Hawaii) have a local town that are similarly proud for their one team or one school. By and large, that isn't the type of merchants and sponsors we have locally and unfortunately. I am almost always stuck with cold calls - and if I'm lucky, I'll get invited to actually do a short presentation about what we are and why they should support us. I can't get one by "easily" (I am sure it's not easy to come by and you do have to work at it) with a shaka, a smile, and "Hey Bruddah". I am happy that other teams have tight knit communities that they can "easily" find that common ground. It's not as easy finding those type of common ground here - it's there and they are terrifically supportive - unfortunately, it takes more and when we are reaching out - it often comes down to being able to show them something physical that means something to them.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

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.

As far as being a 'game' goes, I agree that 2001 was the worst, and I think this year is #2 (I actually enjoyed Lunacy and Stack attack, but I'm sadistic like that )

That being said, I believe that this years challenge is one of the best engineering 'Challenges' FIRST has ever given. The shear difficulty with stacking multiple, different sized, heavy game pieces in a very confined space with other robots that can be 'fairly' large is a huge undertaking. Add the dynamics of coopertition (SP?) stacks and noodle throwing strategies and this is a very difficult challenge.

I, for one, congratulate the GDC on thinking outside the (proverbial) box.

[pmangels17]

Originally Posted by Abhishek R

To talk about a point someone brought up earlier: why couldn't we have a round robin format with wins/losses?

I didn't say we couldn't, in fact I think we should. I just haven't really thought through how to decide who matches up with who and how we decide who moves ahead. I think win-loss-tie round robin would be the ideal eliminations format.

[waialua359]

KoKo Ed said it the best.

On Thursdays, its ZZZZ.
On Fridays, there are too many matches that are ZZZZ.
But on Saturdays during eliminations, there are as good as any previous season, especially if you are still playing come the finals. Is it really any different than previous years?

The game is definitely different compared to the last several years, but the excitement as a whole hasnt changed.

With Championships much bigger starting this year, I see it as gettting to a whole new level with the 8 divisions.
Matches are more fun and exciting when both alliances on the field are more evenly matched, where the better strategy wins matches. We should see a whole lot more given that elite teams will have a tough time getting 3 elite robots on the same alliance due the increase of divisions and teams.

[Green Potato]

In the last few years, some people paid the majority of the attention to the best robot on each alliance in eliminations, because it often appeared to the team. Some people opened their eyes more and looked at the whole alliance as a unit. However, this year in elims, I find myself taking note of how elimination alliances handle the weakest robot on the field. Some alliances sort of push it off to the sides to keep it out of the way of the higher seeds, and some try harder to integrate it into their alliance.

[Jared Russell]

This is worse than 2001 and 2009 IMO. At least in those years, every robot on the field mattered, and there was some variation in what you were going to see from match to match.

It felt like FRC was becoming an actual sport for a while, and then all of sudden we're doing a no-touching forklift skills competition instead. If this is the new normal, I'm out. Plain and simple. I'd rather be at work.

[Chris Endres]

Originally Posted by BrennanB

Now then. Lets stop complaining all over CD about how bad the game is, and instead think of how you can play the game better.

tl;dr The game doesn't suck, it's just different. /thread

Amen, plz stahp.

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by Sperkowsky

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

Your nuclear game is weak. People who know me know that I can sustain a critical campaign against various flawed aspects of games and their administration by staff and volunteers for weeks, if motivated. But instead of issuing my own extended opinion this time, I will simply encourage any and all who have disagreements over the game to continue to voice them constructively. Please do ensure you fill out the event feedback surveys FIRST issues to competing teams each week - both students and mentors are free to fill these out. And yes, feel free to post your misgivings on CD. We know the GDC is listening. Identify the problem(s) and propose corrective action.

I am recognizing this game as a HOPEFULLY temporary divergence from a more traditional competition. If this type of game becomes the norm, FIRST can throw the "Sport for the Mind" and "Super Bowl of Smarts" taglines right out the window.

"Material Handling for the Mind"? It's definitely harder to capture the hearts and minds of the uninitiated when the vehicle is a forklift instead of a snazzy "sports" car.

[jman4747]

Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman

"Material Handling for the Mind"? It's definitely harder to capture the hearts and minds of the uninitiated when the vehicle is a forklift instead of a snazzy "sports" car.

But we've never had sports cars! I still say if you came for an exciting game to watch as a spectator then you missed the point. FIRST isn't about spectating it's about involvement. Involvement of kids, mentors, companies, and volunteers. None of the companies who sponsor our team got involved because of the game we are playing, they were impressed by what we students were doing.

The first time I saw any kind of robotics was 2010 championships and when I got there I didn't so much as look a the playing field because I had no idea what was going on. Most outsides looking at FRC never get what's happening on the field unless one of us explains it anyway. Furthermore most games start out with most teams not doing much on days 1 & 2 of the regional this is no different.

Kids may think shooting frisbees is cool but how many would really want to put in the work to build a 2013 bot? The inspiration is in the work the game gives us work and has us trying to improve to beat each other at it. Being a competition and not a science far offers the motivation for us. Most people who spectate pro basketball don't participate and a pro game of basketball is more "exciting" to watch than any year of FRC. Playing the game, FRC or basketball, has a whole lot more to it than the match.

[Chris Hibner]

Originally Posted by jman4747

I still say if you came for an exciting game to watch as a spectator then you missed the point. FIRST isn't about spectating it's about involvement.

Don't take this the wrong way, but you may be missing the point that a lot of us are trying to make: you get more involvement with an exciting competition.

I'm not saying that the students THIS YEAR will be more or less involved - I'm talking about future involvement. If you bring new people to an event and they find it exciting and fun, they are more likely to get involved. On the other hand, if they're bored to tears they're much more likely to think "this is stupid" and find better things to do with their time.

[jman4747]

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner

Don't take this the wrong way, but you may be missing the point that a lot of us are trying to make: you get more involvement with an exciting competition.

I'm not saying that the students THIS YEAR will be more or less involved - I'm talking about future involvement. If you bring new people to an event and they find it exciting and fun, they are more likely to get involved. On the other hand, if they're bored to tears they're much more likely to think "this is stupid" and find better things to do with their time.

My statement was to mean that our involvement and the work we do is what gets people looking into STEM and supporting stem based education not how the matches look. The competition being exciting is one reason we might stay involved and there is more to the excitement than how much happens in a mach.

FRC matches never look "cool" to outsiders at lower and medium levels of play and usually not even at high levels. That aspect is no different than years past. This challenge is great and the competition is as good as its ever been.

[SousVide]

Originally Posted by Jaywalker1711

While I think that often people do not understand the game, or any FRC game, I think that there is one thing people do understand: people
There's all this talk about Robot Wars and whatever, and I am sad to hear about that kind of press. But sometimes the media gets it.


This is the front page of the local paper from Monday

(snipped out the picture as it's a large image for reinclude)

There's a whole page later devoted to pictures of the robots and other teams.


See, it's not all about the robots. It's about the people who build the robots. It's not all about the game. It's all about how you play the game

Excellent article. Congrats on your team's win.

[Wayne TenBrink]

This game reminds me of a bowling tournament with 3-person teams. You are rewarded for being able to perform the same task (manipulating a heavy object) in the same setting (at least for chute loaders), over and over again without messing up. What happens on the next lane over has little impact on your game. Now with "Cheese-caking", its like a bowling tournament where the best bowler gets to throw the second ball for the weakest bowler.

I do like the engineering challenge. Its a nice departure from handling spheres or inflated tubes, and the robot rules have given teams an opportunity to think outside the normal box.

I can handle the different tournament format and lack of direct interaction once in a while, but I hope it isn't the new norm.