Why I think having no defense was a great idea

[jeremy callahan]

Originally Posted by Taylor

Our robot played 56 matches this season - that's triple any previous amount - and it's still going strong. I'm fairly certain that it would not have such longevity given a defensive game.

your team only played 56 matches? Michigan about doubles that every year and we usually have hard defense in our state. If you cant build a robust machine then you aren't doing it right. if its not robust and can't go the distance. how do you know your going to have a working robot every match?

[IronicDeadBird]

I would agree with the title in the context of this year.
The little to no defense this year worked great for the game this year and provided a distinctive style of play.
I think game traits like defense and offense cannot be generalized into a good or bad category. It is how said traits are applied to a game that really adds or subtracts from said game. It is weird for me coming from a video game background which includes a lot of squad base games, and real time strats, and hearing all this "defense makes games exciting!" It actually conflicts with my past experiences where generally defense heavy is the worst thing next to water levels (which also makes it weird when people ask for a water game). Poorly implemented defense mechanics result in horribly slow game play, and absolutely no audience appeal. In the future I would like to games like Recycle Rush make a comeback, but instead of the conventional bumper to bumper defense a lot of people want I would instead want to see resource defense implemented. Safety zones are something I feel the GDC needs to fully utilize in the future. The games they present are really well done and only by taking risks (like the ones they took this year) will they continue to grow.
Then again that is just my 2cents...

[BumblingBuilder]

While I think having minimal defense was a fine idea this year, I don't exactly want FIRST to make it the norm, and it's likely they won't. This year was a great deviation from the standard projectile game we've seen in the few years prior. It proved to be a great way for teams to branch out in creativity that we don't exactly get from defense-heavy games. Having no defense allows teams to think differently. They have more freedom because they don't feel too constricted to a particular build because they're worried about having to stand the ramming from the teams of the opposing alliance. However, having an emphasis on defense has its merits. They don't have to just worry about accidentally knocking over a stack (and what to do when that happens) or the occasional pool noodle pile on the ground. Teams learn about having to adapt to unpredicted events like a change in defense strategy. Teams have to think about how to make their robot more versatile.

With both types of games having their merits, they should both be utilized in the future to push the differing amounts of constrictions, adaptability, and creativity offered in the robotics field that FIRST participants may deal with in their future.

[pntbll1313]

Originally Posted by jeremy callahan

your team only played 56 matches? Michigan about doubles that every year and we usually have hard defense in our state. If you cant build a robust machine then you aren't doing it right. if its not robust and can't go the distance. how do you know your going to have a working robot every match?

Michigan usually plays over 100 matches??? Didn't you guys only play 14+14+14+10 = 52 matches?

[stuart2054]

Originally Posted by BumblingBuilder

While I think having minimal defense was a fine idea this year, I don't exactly want FIRST to make it the norm, and it's likely they won't. This year was a great deviation from the standard projectile game we've seen in the few years prior. It proved to be a great way for teams to branch out in creativity that we don't exactly get from defense-heavy games. Having no defense allows teams to think differently. They have more freedom because they don't feel too constricted to a particular build because they're worried about having to stand the ramming from the teams of the opposing alliance. However, having an emphasis on defense has its merits. They don't have to just worry about accidentally knocking over a stack (and what to do when that happens) or the occasional pool noodle pile on the ground. Teams learn about having to adapt to unpredicted events like a change in defense strategy. Teams have to think about how to make their robot more versatile.

With both types of games having their merits, they should both be utilized in the future to push the differing amounts of constrictions, adaptability, and creativity offered in the robotics field that FIRST participants may deal with in their future.

I agree with this statement. I have enjoyed this game and the things that our team did that would not have happened in a defense intense game. However I think that games with defense and "flying objects" are more interesting for spectators, sponsors and the "guy off the street". I have mixed feelings about the average score being used for ranking but it certainly made it easier to know where you stood.

[Rman1923]

I loved this year in terms of building and planning the robot. This game was amazing in terms of strategy, build and possibilities. Could you imagine robots like Batman and Robin in any other year? Could you imagine having any sort of race like we did this year for cans? This year was amazing!

But there are downsides in the #morethanrobots part of it. The best way I could explain this year's game was saying 'fedex simulator 2015'. Like watching the game was really boring for a non-firster. What I'm saying is that although MKIX will always have a special place in my heart (as with any robot I build), for outreach events we'll probably leave our awesome robot in the shed in exchange for the robot that shoots frisbees. I don't mind not having defense but the game that we play should be easily explained to other people who don't do robots (yet).

[qzrrbz]

Originally Posted by pntbll1313

Michigan usually plays over 100 matches??? Didn't you guys only play 14+14+14+10 = 52 matches?

well, a given district winner played 12+2+3+(2or3) == 19or20
and the MSC winner played 12+2+2+3+(2or3) == 21or22

there are quite a few teams that play 3 districts, so they're looking at 57 to 60 matches.

1023, winners at MSC, ended up with about 80+ matches, before CMP!

so, all told (after IRI too ) over 100 matches

[Mr. Tatorscout]

Originally Posted by Rman1923

I loved this year in terms of building and planning the robot. This game was amazing in terms of strategy, build and possibilities. Could you imagine robots like Batman and Robin in any other year? Could you imagine having any sort of race like we did this year for cans? This year was amazing!
.

The unfortunate thing about this year was that Batman and Robin did the same thing match after match after match after match after match after... no variation except for getting better at it as the season progressed. It was a great engineering showcase challenge, but I'm just glad the paint is finally dry.

[FIMAlumni]

Originally Posted by qzrrbz

well, a given district winner played 12+2+3+(2or3) == 19or20
and the MSC winner played 12+2+2+3+(2or3) == 21or22

there are quite a few teams that play 3 districts, so they're looking at 57 to 60 matches.

1023, winners at MSC, ended up with about 80+ matches, before CMP!

so, all told (after IRI too ) over 100 matches

If I have all the data right here are the robots that have played at least 100 matches.

1023 has played 103 matches
125 has played 100 matches
and
1519 has played 100 matches

[Rman1923]

Yeah, I was taking about the engineering aspect, Tbh, competitions are fun but i always have more fun building robots and asking other teams why they built their robots that way. This year I could really see creativity, instead of telling people'it's a forklift' you had to say 'it's a passive forklift with a chain driven lifter'. Whereas last year and years before, you could say "oh, it's just a shooter, no other take on it"

[Nemo]

This year's game took the "defense bot" strategy off the table for teams that otherwise would have settled for a box on wheels. Hopefully that caused some teams to challenge themselves in healthy ways.

#1. I prefer to watch games that are dominated by offense.

#2. I want the incentives in the rules to significantly favor offensive strategies.

#3. I like a scoring mechanic that doesn't severely penalize an alliance for letting a less effective robot try to execute their offensive strategy.

I mention #2 and #3 are because it sucks when teams show up with manipulators and get told by their alliance partners not to use them. Sometimes the incentives are setup that way.

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by jeremy callahan

your team only played 56 matches? Michigan about doubles that every year ...

How many events do you go to each year? The maximum number of matches at a FiM district event this year was 20 - 12 quals, 2 quarters, 3 semis, 2-3 finals. Add 2 more for octos at MSC.

OK, I see where people have posted over 100 including Worlds, for a few teams. But you can't say Michigan about doubles it every year, certainly not for every team.

CyberCards had a respectable season, and 56 is a good number of matches.

And you can't count off-seasons yet, they haven't happened. I'm sure 1529 will add to their total, at least at Cage.

[buchanan]

Originally Posted by Nemo

This year's game took the "defense bot" strategy off the table for teams that otherwise would have settled for a box on wheels. Hopefully that caused some teams to challenge themselves in healthy ways.

#1. I prefer to watch games that are dominated by offense.

#2. I want the incentives in the rules to significantly favor offensive strategies.

#3. I like a scoring mechanic that doesn't severely penalize an alliance for letting a less effective robot try to execute their offensive strategy.

I mention #2 and #3 are because it sucks when teams show up with manipulators and get told by their alliance partners not to use them. Sometimes the incentives are setup that way.

I agree strongly on all points. On #1, I guess it's a matter of preference, though one might observe that the NFL, for example, seems to think that's what their fans want, given rule trends around the passing game. #2 may be just a restatement of #1, even if other points may made for it.

I'm really glad to see #3 mentioned though, because IMO it's one of the uglier sides of FIRST, and unfortunately all too common.

It's one thing (and painful enough) for a team to decide itself to turn to defense because the scoring mechanism they worked all season on isn't working well, but quite another to be told by alliance partners to play defense simply because it better serves the alliance. It is hard for this not to come across as a direct insult to a machine a young team has worked hard on, meant so or not.

While maximizing alliance score may be the best interest of the higher ranked teams competing for seeding spots, it frequently isn't for those lower down. Their best shot may be to make a good showing of some unique capability that might cause a captain to pick them for eliminations, or to demonstrate that the failures that dropped their ranking have been corrected and they're now underrated, and a good "sleeper" pick. Finally, if you're completely out of the running, what's better for enjoyment and experience, running your robot to the best of its capabilities and learning what you can, or "taking one for the team" to help partners you may be playing against the very next round anyway?

The sad part is that it's young teams most likely to be in this position, and most likely to succumb to this sort of pressure. They want to be GP, but haven't yet learned to assert, or even fully evaluate, their own team's best interests. Young teams are also the ones that most need encouragement, and using them as cannon fodder isn't particularly encouraging.

It should go without saying that the above applies exclusively to qualifications, not eliminations, for several good reasons.

[Melissa McBrien]

The answer to this one depends a lot on you primary goal.

If your chief goal is to design a creative robot that doesn't have to consider more extremes of durability, then a no-defense game might be a better venue. Although, in my opinion, the robots this year were more uniform in their appearance and approach to strategy than in the previous 7 years that I've been around FIRST.

If you would like to engage an audience outside of already devoted FIRST-ers, then defense is something that adds the uncertainty and excitement that garners attention.

An "endgame" like the minibot or hanging in the last few seconds helps supply some of that, as well.

[WillNess]

Originally Posted by Melissa McBrien

Although, in my opinion, the robots this year were more uniform in their appearance and approach to strategy than in the previous 7 years that I've been around FIRST..

Whaaaa? I guess I could maybe see strategy being the same due to the simplicity of the game. The game goal was to stack totes and put a bin on top. That was it. Last year it was passing, shooting over truss, two different goals, you had to make combos with shooting over truss into human player, into other robots, assists. I understand that. But appearance? I saw so many different mechanisms to pick up the totes and recycling bins, as well as tethered robots are something completely new. Robots were built to either grab from the feeder station or the landfill. There were robots that had ramps, and much more. In 2010 all of the robots were basically the same except 469, that year (in my opinion) was the year with the most uniform robot appearance.