'02 or '03 Game

[Jack]

Well... now that we've all finished yet another great FIRST season, which one do you think you liked better? 2002 FIRST (Zone Zeal) (sp?) or 2003 (Stack Atack).

Which change did you like the best/worst?

Please, no 2004 ideas. That's what another thread is for.

[Jeff Waegelin]

Well, I'd have to say I liked the 2002 game better. Why, you ask? Three reasons:

1. The 2003 game was too dependent on alliance partners.

In 2002, we could easily score 50 points unassisted. If we had a good partner, we could get a real high QP score, but even in a 2v1 situation, a good team could hold their own. Not so in most cases this year. Double-teaming could beat most teams in terms of stack or ramp defense. This made the rankings entirely too dependent on luck for my tastes. In Ypsilanti and Houston, my team got good luck and seeded #2. In Chicago, though, we personally played better than any time, but our pairings in the qualifiers really hurt our rankings. While this game wasn't as bad as 2001 in that respect, it was still not as easy to play alone as 2002 was.

2. The incentive for just pushing things was too high

While this was my team's strategy, and I'm not complaining too much, I think that there was little incentive for doing anything other than crash around and hit things. While there was exciting battles between teams for stacks and the top, things like stacking ultimately proved to be pretty useless. While balls weren't the biggest thing last year, they were a much bigger factor than stacking. This year's game was essentially just a game of attack and defend.

3. Elimination rounds were awkwardly handled

This has been beaten to death in other threads, so I won't go too in-depth, but essentially, I felt that the EP system was confusing, hard to deal with, and promoted things like de-scoring that just don't make much sense in any other context. In my mind, FIRST should have kept the best-of-three format. It would've promoted actual match play in every round, instead of one big round followed by massive de-scoring.

Well, that's my $0.02 on that matter. In the end, I liked both games, but if I had to pick, the 2002 game definitely wins out.

[Koci]

Although I agree that the 2003 game had its problems, I honestly believe it was much more entertaining. I mean, the autonomous period always allowed for the unknown to occur, and something happened on all parts of the playing field. In the 2002 game, unless there was a ball harvester on the field, it became a push and shove match that was uninteresting and repetitive.

[Jeff Rodriguez]

the 2003 game took away alot of creativity.
If i remember correctly, all of the bots in the finals, could not stack.
They were simply push bots or KOTH bots.

[sanddrag]

I think 2003 was a more spectator friendly game just as promised. As a driver and spectator in both years, I liked 2003 much more than 2002. The game was more thrilling. However, very little design and engineering inspiration came as a result of Stack Attack. Zone Zeal produced many more innovative robots and subsytems.

[Mike Martus]

Honestly, I think both games missed the "Marks" each in their own respective ways.

This has been a hot topic to be sure.

Two negatives for this year:

1. The scoring system of 2 times the losers score.

2. The elimination system, win 1 match big and the second game is useless.

BTW Team 201, 47 and 547 won an elimination match being down by 66 points. The magic number for "No way" is about 70 points behind.

[Ryan Albright]

I have to say i like 2003 game alot, but like evryone else said it had its flaws. I loved the AI modes that was something i thought was awesome. A good AI mode could win you the match. I have to agree stacking was mostly thrown out due to people just ramming stacks. Which are team stacked a few times but are arm was mostly used for protecting the ramp and knocking over stacks. I think stacking was a big part but they should of made it more of a incentive to do it. Definetly, next year i think they should go back to the best 2 out of 3 in elmination. I have to agree this years game was very exciting to watch and drive in. About relying to much on your alliance partner i am not to shuyre about that, because in ucf in one of are matches we where practicially by ourself cause are teammate blew there transmission, and we where ranked 5th and we went up agains the 1st and 7th seed team, and instead of getting killed we almost beat them. WE lost by 16 points that if we could of pusched off there robot on the top we would of won. Buit overall good game cant wait for next year

[Ian W.]

i quite honestly, did not like this year's game. there was too much new stuff, and no one could come up with an effective, UNIQUE solution. sure, anyone can build a box with wheels to smash stacks down. anyone can build a drivetrain with tons of power (now looking back, i should've taken my 2002 bot, we would've won no problem). but that's boring. i want to go to a competition, and see four robots doing the exact same thing, but doing it four completely different ways.

for example, last year, RAGE had a unique way to pick up balls. compared to all the other ball bots i saw, no one did it the same way RAGE did. this year, no robots stick out in my mind the same way RAGE did last year. sure, i can name a few ones that were cool, but i never really saw anything that made me step back and go "wow, that's amazing."

i guess what it comes down to is, FIRST needs a simple game, with tons of ways to score points. some easy, some hard. the only problem is fairly giving points out, as i believe 25 points for KOH was way too much. if not for that, i'm pretty sure many more teams would have made stacking robots. oh well, maybe next year...

[J Flex 188]

what is wrong with having a simple, effective bot that can do one simple thing and do it well? honestly.. if your robot is nothing more than a box on steroids on wheels, does that make it any less qualified than a giant arm or stacker? complexity or function doesnt always mean a good robot. As long as you stick to one simple, primary goal, then your robot can do well. Try and do too much at once, and you end up not really excelling at anything.

Why complain about boxes on wheels. Maybe thats the only type of robots rookie or even experienced teams could build. Its just strategy. If a stacker wants to spend 20 seconds making a stack of 5, while a dozer plows everything out of the way, then so be it.

btw.. in Curie, 188 nearly came back from an EP difference of at least 80 points, until the match was DQ'ed. Im not in favour or against the EP scoring system. It seems to keep the original idea of the game going.. but thats just my opinion.

[rees2001]

How come you didn't put the 2000 game in this poll? Of the 3 I believe this was the year that alot of growth was made. Plus it was the most fun. Just about everybody needed to work the scoring items, & most teams tried to find a way to hang or stay on the ramp. Skip that 2001 year. Please no more 4 vs the clock junk, blah.


Oh, yah the point of this thread...I liked this year's better. More thinking involved.

[Todd Derbyshire]

My favorite Competition was 2000, with 2002 barreling right behind it. 2003's game just bothers me way too much. You don't need this overly engineered robot to win which retracted from what has been growing in the past few years. This year is you had a movible chasis and could push a box then you had a legitamate chance at winning a regional. I would much more prefer a game in which creativity wins regionals. As for 2001 game lets not even get into that!!!!

[Etbitmydog]

2. The elimination system, win 1 match big and the second game is useless

I definatly agree with this. I really didn't like the way elimination was done. 2/3 is a much better way to do it more because it keeps the game interesting till the last moment. If there was a huge first match and you see the 2nd match where the other team is winning but not by a huge point scale you know who is going to win and it kinda takes the fun out of it.

[Eric G]

I think the 2003 game was far more entertaining to watch! I would rather have the game require dependence on alliance partners. That was the beauty of the 2001 game. Teamwork made you great.

Perhaps if stacks were illegal to knock down and you were required to have a stack to be eligible to win...then stacking would have been huge. I guess if the game was not head to head, stacking would have been huge too, but I prefer the crash and smash nature of the game. Without the violence, it is just high tech ballet.

2 out of 3 means more FINALS!!! and more finals are good finals (except in exams.) Sum of 2 scoring means that (as happened in the finals at Nationals) if one or both robots breaks or is disabled, then that team has a minute chance of winning. However Sum Of 2 scoring means less time and that is probably a big motivator for FIRST.

Eric, 343

[Koko Ed]

I prefer the 2003 game by a mile!
It was exciting and unpredictable.
LAst years game was deadly dull in elimination rounds.
First robot to grab and hold the goals usually won.
True this years match would've been better with a two out of three type elimination round but I still liked this year a whole lot better.

[AlbertW]

I didn't play in last year's game, so my information might not be complete, but from what I know, I like last year's game better.

This year, if your robot didn't work, you were dead in the water. You couldn't score points, etc. Last year, if you even brought your robot onto the field, and it didn't move, it got the "returned to starting zone" points.

Also, this year the ramp made the bots really tippy, and took up too much of the field. The three different surfaces made traction a nightmare.

Last year, i believe the robot contact rules were different as well?