Best 4 Year Game Career?

[Siri]

Originally Posted by asid61

I think it's funny that people are hating on 2015 and glorifying 2014. There were many, many hate threads on 2014 last year too, as I am sure there are every year. 2015 should be excluded from the pickings until 2016 to get a fair estimate.

There are "many" complaints every year, but that doesn't mean there are the same number. The complaints about 2014 never came close to say 2009, nor did they approach 2015. 2010 maybe.

[dodar]

Did people actually complain about 2010? I thought it was considered the most accepted game.

[EricH]

My take on 2010 vs 2014:

2010 had hits, shots, missed shots, and a consistent theme (which, for FRC, is hit-and-miss.... this one hit). It's the first year yellow cards were an option for the refs. The game pieces (or simulated game pieces) were readily available, there was terrain, and the biggest problem was the DOGMA penalties if a human made a mistake. (That, and 469 hogging all the balls they could get to .) But, due to some of the rules being the way they were, scores were low: you couldn't really fully possess the balls, and you were limited to one at a time. Low scores meant lots of ties. And the ranking system I won't even mention. (Yes, it was that bad.)

2014 had hits, shots, and missed shots. The excitement level was way up there. On the other hand, the entire game relied on the referees to make the right call with not enough eyes on the field, and to make it right away with a laggy system. To make matters worse, the penalty point values were out of whack with the scored point values.

I'd have to give 2014 the edge for the continuous action... but 2010 gets the edge for being somewhat easier to ref (and keep track of). YMMV.

To me, that's actually what can make or break a game, ANY game: if you get a penalty, is the value of the penalty in proportion to the offense committed AND to the typical score of a given match in that game? Recycle Rush actually nailed this one: get a penalty, score 3 totes or 1 noodle on a stack and you're even (other than the hit to the ranking points that you'd have otherwise gotten). Several other games were similar in the past--but, at the same time, there are games like '08 where simply spinning around in place in a lousy spot could get you a penalty (no joke--try G22 from that year, and add in that 2/4 lines were in a place the refs couldn't see 'em very well).

[dodar]

Originally Posted by EricH

My take on 2010 vs 2014:

2010 had hits, shots, missed shots, and a consistent theme (which, for FRC, is hit-and-miss.... this one hit). It's the first year yellow cards were an option for the refs. The game pieces (or simulated game pieces) were readily available, there was terrain, and the biggest problem was the DOGMA penalties if a human made a mistake. (That, and 469 hogging all the balls they could get to .) But, due to some of the rules being the way they were, scores were low: you couldn't really fully possess the balls, and you were limited to one at a time. Low scores meant lots of ties. And the ranking system I won't even mention. (Yes, it was that bad.)

2014 had hits, shots, and missed shots. The excitement level was way up there. On the other hand, the entire game relied on the referees to make the right call with not enough eyes on the field, and to make it right away with a laggy system. To make matters worse, the penalty point values were out of whack with the scored point values.

I'd have to give 2014 the edge for the continuous action... but 2010 gets the edge for being somewhat easier to ref (and keep track of). YMMV.

To me, that's actually what can make or break a game, ANY game: if you get a penalty, is the value of the penalty in proportion to the offense committed AND to the typical score of a given match in that game? Recycle Rush actually nailed this one: get a penalty, score 3 totes or 1 noodle on a stack and you're even (other than the hit to the ranking points that you'd have otherwise gotten). Several other games were similar in the past--but, at the same time, there are games like '08 where simply spinning around in place in a lousy spot could get you a penalty (no joke--try G22 from that year, and add in that 2/4 lines were in a place the refs couldn't see 'em very well).

The "no takesie-backsie" rule from 2008 is probably the worst rule I have run across since I joined; what made it worst, was early on you didnt have to completely cross the line to have been considered "passed it" which made for very inconsistent ref rulings.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by dodar

Did people actually complain about 2010? I thought it was considered the most accepted game.

Think that's 10 years too late, or maybe only 4-6.

2000, 2004, and 2006 were all very accepted. 2007, too, as I recall. '05 had very out-of-whack penalties in certain situations--but they had their effect, as teams committing those violations generally lost the match. '01 and '03 are very low on the "happy" list; '02 is somewhere in the middle.

[Knufire]

Originally Posted by EricH

My take on 2010 vs 2014:
...

2010 was also ungodly hard. I think the average OPR was <1? Definitely crossed the line of too hard of a game, IMO.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by Knufire

2010 was also ungodly hard. I think the average OPR was <1? Definitely crossed the line of too hard of a game, IMO.

OPR is relative. The high was something like 6 or 7.

[Knufire]

Originally Posted by dodar

OPR is relative. The high was something like 6 or 7.

The magnitude is relative, yes. But regardless of the game, zero points is zero points. I'd argue a higher number of robots had zero offensive contribution in 2010 compared to other recent games.

[tindleroot]

Originally Posted by dodar

OPR is relative. The high was something like 6 or 7.

An OPR of 1 roughly corresponded to one goal per match by a robot. Most robots, IF my memory is correct, could shoot more than 1 Frisbee, basketball, tetra, tube, or tote. The average team any other year could score more than 6 or 7 game pieces, whereas only the "best" in 2010 could score that much.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Knufire

The magnitude is relative, yes. But regardless of the game, zero points is zero points. I'd argue a higher number of robots had zero offensive contribution in 2010 compared to other recent games.

Given the number of zero-zero ties, that might be a fair assessment. OTOH, there weren't all that many of those without a penalty assessed somewhere.

The #1 biggest problem with 2010 was the possession rule. For those that weren't there, you had to work with one ball at a time--inadvertently grabbing another got you a penalty. (After Week 1, the rule was modified somewhat to allow inadvertent violations to try to clear out any extras.) And you could only have about 6" of the ball under your control, 3" or less actually inside your frame (or other ball-control device, if that was on top of your frame) and the rest under your bumpers. And the real kicker was that the kicker had to be inside the frame perimeter. 3" on a size 5 soccer ball ain't a lot of room to work with!

If that one dimension was somewhat larger, I think the scores would have been a lot higher. The game was good as a game, just that particular number, and the ranking system were really annoying.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by tindleroot

An OPR of 1 roughly corresponded to one goal per match by a robot. Most robots, IF my memory is correct, could shoot more than 1 Frisbee, basketball, tetra, tube, or tote. The average team any other year could score more than 6 or 7 game pieces, whereas only the "best" in 2010 could score that much.

You cannot compare games by the number of "scores" a team can make. Look at it like this, how many opportunities to score that soccerball did a 2010 team have per match? Now, compare that to how many opportunities teams had to score a frisbee in 2013, basketball in 2012, a tote in 2015, etc...

If the average alliance score in 2010 was 3, and the average OPR was 1 which came out to 1 goal per team per match, that would be the equivalent of scoring 20 points this year.(if the average alliance score was around 60)

Like I said, OPR isnt a good way to compare robot ability from year to year.

[tindleroot]

Originally Posted by dodar

You cannot compare games by the number of "scores" a team can make. Look at it like this, how many opportunities to score that soccerball did a 2010 team have per match? Now, compare that to how many opportunities teams had to score a frisbee in 2013, basketball in 2012, a tote in 2015, etc...

If the average alliance score in 2010 was 3, and the average OPR was 1 which came out to 1 goal per team per match, that would be the equivalent of scoring 20 points this year.(if the average alliance score was around 60)

Like I said, OPR isnt a good way to compare robot ability from year to year.

Thank you for your insight. However, I feel you missed my main point.

My point was not to compare OPR from year to year. My point, in a nutshell, is that if it takes a robot the entire match period to get one game piece in a goal, then that game is probably harder than a game where a robot can score many times in one match, regardless of the point value of scoring; this supports Knufire's claim. If an average robot can only score once on a decent match then the game is probably too hard. That being said, there were some great robots in 2010, but they came around less often than most other years since the game was harder to play.

In other words, even though 2010 had fewer opportunities to score (i.e. fewer balls on the field) there were still many cases when none of those opportunities were completed anyways and that led to a bunch of "0" scores. Our team won 7 matches in 2010 against a 0 score and lost 6 matches the same way - tell me Breakaway wasn't hard.

[Lil' Lavery]

2004-2007, and it's not really close.

2010 was ungodly bad during the early weeks (even setting aside the ranking shenanigans that were modified after week 1). Yes, most games are bad during regional qualification matches. But we're talking a level of bad where 57% of matches during the DC regional had at least one alliance finish the match with 0 points. Two elimination alliances at Peachtree scored 0 goals combined in the quarterfinals.

All games improve dramatically as the season progresses. Looking at early week video of just about any game is pretty depressing. But Breakaway took this to the extreme. Compared to many FRC games, it already involved scoring fewer game objects per match in general. But when that figure hits 0 as often as it did in Breakaway, it makes for a poor game. It was simply too hard for the lower level teams to corral the soccer ball given the stipulations that game had.

[Zebra_Fact_Man]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

2004-2007, and it's not really close.

This! My opinion, subject to other's opinions:

2015 is too soon for me to fairly judge, so I am excluding it.

2014 was one of the most dynamic games of all time (close with 2004).
2013 was a solid game but had problematic defensive zone interactions.
2012 was an all around solid game.
2011 minibot race was disastrously overvalued. In the playoffs, if you lost the minibot race 1-2, you did not win.
2010 had too high of an entry for minimum competitive teams. Too many 0-0 QRounds.
2009 is a personal favorite of mine, but a nightmare to keep track of the score for spectators.
2008 was just a bad game with minimal intentional robot-robot interaction.
2007 was a better version of 2011, defensive play allowed for different roles, no minibots.
2006 dynamic game play (offensive time vs defensive time) and well tiered scoring.
2005 one of my favorite games to watch videos of. Alliance score could increase or decrease as the game progressed.
2004 probably the most dynamic game of all time. Organized chaos.
2003 neat concept, ultimately became a bulldozing competition ending in a king of the mountain contest, lacked role variance.
2002-earlier: no autonomous, not much knowledge/video of games.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Zebra_Fact_Man

2002-earlier: no autonomous, not much knowledge/video of games.

I think that can be fixed. (Just don't spend too much time poking around there.)