Why I think having no defense was a great idea

[WillNess]

Originally Posted by MrForbes

It was rather boring in our pit, since we never had to fix anything on the robot. Is that good or bad? I don't know. It was less nerve wracking than having the robot getting damaged in matches.

I did like your robot at the AZ West regional...and I know your team was having fun!

Thanks! Yours was really cool too.

[WillNess]

Originally Posted by Pretzel

The lack of robot interaction

I agree with this. One of the most exciting parts about last year was the truss shots to a human player or another robot, to see how the robots interacted was very exciting.

[BigJ]

Originally Posted by WillNess

Agreed like in 2010 alliances would just have two goalies that would literally just put themselves in the opposing goals and the best scoring robots couldn't do anything.

In 2010 only one defensive robot could be in the zone containing the goals.

[Hjelstrom]

Count me in the minority that agrees with the original poster! Not having to worry about physical defense or strict size restrictions was really awesome for all the reasons stated.

[James3245]

I really enjoyed the challenge this year's game provided our team as we considered possible strategies in the days after kick-off. As valuable as the actually competition is in terms of learning feedback, I think that just as valuable for student learning (and my enjoyment of the season) is the amazing cerebral challenge of analyzing a new game.

Yes, every year provides this. However, by eliminating robot-to-robot contact and defining separate alliance zones the GDC this year unleashed a refreshing set of new opportunities and challenges to consider. I think they did an excellent job in prompting teams to think freshly. For this kudos to the game designers.

I've never witnessed so much excitement in the community about a reveal video as that generated by 148's release. I really enjoyed watching it with my students as it showed elegantly out-of-the-(FRC)box thinking. Such an innovative design would have never come about in a more typical game that included defense.

I don't think there is a "right" amount of offense/defense balance for a "good" game. I hope that the GDC keeps mixing it up year-to-year. It is healthy for the level of student learning. Every game should be refreshingly different; I have no problem with some games being at the extreme ends on the continuum of amount of opportunities to play defense. On a four year cycle of student participation it is desirable to have a variety of games. We all learn more that way.

I would enjoy having another of this same kind some year in the future.

[Sunshine]

I have no problem witht the elimination of contact to contact with robots. Defense can occur without the brutal hits. I hope that FIRST continues the trend of expandable robots. Not sure if this can be accomplished with defense. I'd gladly give up defense to see this trend continue.

[Wawa]

I think it was a really good thing for no defense this year. As a fifth year team that has never really had a functioning robot, it gave us the opportunity to really focus on ourselves without worrying about what other teams might do to our bot. We bagged a fully functioning robot this year (never happened before) and it was really awesome to not have to rush between matches to repair anything, ever.
I don't think we should keep this no-defense forever, but it definitely was good for teams that haven't always been very elite. Yes, there was a significant lack in excitement for spectators, but sometimes we need that little slack in action to catch up to those legendary teams out there.

[WillNess]

Originally Posted by BigJ

In 2010 only one defensive robot could be in the zone containing the goals.

Ya but they would switch a lot and defense was overpowered

[WillNess]

Originally Posted by Hjelstrom

Count me in the minority that agrees with the original poster! Not having to worry about physical defense or strict size restrictions was really awesome for all the reasons stated.

High Five!

[PVCpirate]

I'll start by saying I'm not a fan of high speed, damage causing ramming being commonplace as it was in 2014. However, I think defense should exist in some form for a couple reasons. Defense forces teams to keep making their mechanisms faster and stronger. Any time you extend a mechanism outside your robot, it could be hit by another robot and break. You can reduce this by making the mechanism faster so it is at risk for a shorter time, or making it stronger so it doesn't break as easily.

The other reason for me is defense is exciting. I'm not talking about big hits, but one of my favorite things about sports is the "unstoppable force vs the immovable object" matchup, when a great offense goes up against a great defense(best FRC example is 254 vs. 1114 last year). Sure watching a great robot stack up totes is cool, but by the end of the competition you're just watching to see if they screw up. Defense adds a level of uncertainty that makes it entertaining. Bottom line, FIRST says they are all about inspiring people, but you can't do that if the matches are boring.

Originally Posted by WillNess

Ya but they would switch a lot and defense was overpowered

Just as an aside, 2010 remains my favorite game (weird ranking system aside) because the game evolved to have positions (forward, midfielder, defender), and everyone had to play their position well to win the match. defense was definitely important, but I didn't think it was overpowered.

[DonShaw]

Not having defense take an element out of design and strategy for the robot and game.

Needs to be a combination of both and include opposing alliance interaction as well.

[Jared Russell]

Interaction between players on opposing sides is what makes most team sports so much fun to watch, because every match is different. Decisions need to be made on the fly, there are tradeoffs to every strategy, and outgunned teams always have at least some chance of pulling off an upset (aside from hoping for their opponent to screw up).

This year, there was almost no interaction between opposing sides, outside of noodle throwing and the can race.

I don't think every FIRST game needs to have bumper-crushing physical contact between robots to be interesting. I do think that every FIRST game needs a significant level of interaction between the opposing sides in order to be interesting.

[David Lame]

Who are we trying to inspire? Ourselves? I don't think so. I think it's the rest of the world. Everyone who joins First is already inspired.

Dean Kamen says he wants to transform the world into a place where scientists and engineers are looked up to like sports heroes and entertainers are today. Well, if that's to be the case, we need to get people to look at us. We need to keep our game interesting and, well, sport-like.

That doesn't necessarily mean bumper-crushing action, but I think that having an entertaining game that could be watched and enjoyed by non-techies is an extremely important part of First game design.

[PVCpirate]

Originally Posted by David Lame

Who are we trying to inspire? Ourselves? I don't think so. I think it's the rest of the world. Everyone who joins First is already inspired.

Dean Kamen says he wants to transform the world into a place where scientists and engineers are looked up to like sports heroes and entertainers are today. Well, if that's to be the case, we need to get people to look at us. We need to keep our game interesting and, well, sport-like.

That doesn't necessarily mean bumper-crushing action, but I think that having an entertaining game that could be watched and enjoyed by non-techies is an extremely important part of First game design.

You're spot on, and this is why I loved the 2014 game concept. It was robotball! It was a sport, drawing elements from sports people know, and played by teams of 3 robots each. Even at fairly low levels, it was fast paced and had tough defense, explosive offense, buzzer beaters, teamwork, interesting strategy. You name something that makes sports exciting, Aerial Assist had it. Plus, it was easy to understand! If FIRST wants to inspire people outside the program, it should aim for that, not stacking boxes in neat rows and throwing pool noodles at them.

[Deneb]

This year, in a stacking game, no defense was a good idea so that the maximum point total was easier to achieve. However, in future games, it would be nice to see defense again because it provides an opportunity for skilled drivers to take advantage of the situation regardless of the robot's quality. Defense also serves as a well needed nerf to uber teams and allows competition to be more intense and exciting.