Cookie cutter game design

[Ringo5tarr]

I know that that is a sort of click-baity title, but I have no other way to describe it, and this is nothing against game designers, this isn't even a complaint, I'm saying this to not only help us as a community to point this out, but also for strategy purposes (examples later).

FRC seems to use a cookie cutter for their game design, or perhaps a checklist might be a better analog, they seem to always have so many vague things to cover, and slight variations may exist in between to show difference, tell me what I miss:

-Autonomous that scores some sort of points for simply moving
-(Somewhat optional) Autonomous that scores more for more advanced options
-Main scoring (the highest points for the hardest task that can be done multiple times, or perhaps a middle score for middle points)
-Secondary scoring (less points for less effort, for teams who think that doing less effort may get them more points in the long run, forming strategies)
-(Optional) Tertiary scoring (Something unrelated to the previous two scoring options, but still scores points)
-Endgame with (Optional) Climbing (Usually the marking point between good teams and the kind of teams that win events, however thats correlation, not causation.)

SO using this sort of cookie cutter, a rookie team last year could have decided before the game was even announced that they would build a bot that could achieve the moving autonomous, secondary scoring and tertiary scoring if they had it, or they might say, the best points will porbably come from the main scroing, and go for that. So then immediately after the game was announced they could spend minimal time on strategy and begin design, but I don't know how useful of a design strategy that is, so take this with a grain of salt please

[SenorZ]

I can't argue that the structure exists... but knowing that doesn't make it easier to shoot boulders in the high goal from the defenses.

[nickbrickmaster]

I have noticed this pattern. Are you implying there's something wrong with it? @ your closing comment, I would say it's not useful at all, not any more than someone deciding they will win Einstein that year. Specific design and implementation is what matters, so much more than high-level year-long strategy.

[EricH]

There are certain requirements that FIRST uses to develop games. I believe that the requirements list is double-checked every year or two, but some of the basics, in no particular order, are:

--Playable by rookie teams (who tend to do little more than a box-on-wheels)
--Challenges experienced teams (see also: two-ball auto)
--Spectator-friendly (as in, spectators can see the field pretty well)
--Safety
--FUN!
--Simple rules (sorry, but that's "as simple as possible"--the rules aren't simple)
--Other requirements that I don't know about...

If you had to design a brand-new game every year, using those requirements (in some order--not all games will hit all requirements fully), you'd have some common elements, too. Those first two requirements ARE real, and they ARE difficult to work around each other! And yet somehow, FIRST comes up with a new game every year, and they're all different (in some ways). If they happen to be a little cookie-cutter... let's just go with the lack of endgame in 2014 (and 2015)...

Incidentally, there is a really good strategy for rookies. Phase 1: make sure you are getting the KOP drivetrain. Phase 2: Assemble immediately after Kickoff. You can now play the game at a minimal level (defense, "easy" tasks). Phase 3: Figure out what simple assembly to add on that will make you play the game better than anybody who stops at Phase 2. Repeat until bag.

[Doug Frisk]

Of course the game designers consider ways for teams at all skill levels to score in all aspects of the game. The game would be horrible if they didn't.

There are teams with beginner, journeyman and advanced mechanical and programming skills.

Every game must at some level accommodate teams that are brand new running an almost unmodified kit bot.

At the same time, every game should have a task that will strain the capabilities of the most advanced programmers and mechanical engineers.

That's just good game design.

[ctt956]

I haven't really thought about it before, but now that I think about it, it does seem to exist. I don't think autonomous always gives points for simply moving; moving forward did give points in some games, but in 2016 for example, there were no points unless at least one wheel of a robot made physical contact with a defense base, and more points for crossing it. As for the early strategy decision, I don't think it matters that much, because a predetermined strategy may not be practical or the team may not be able to build a robot to do it. There was no endgame in 2015, and breaching in 2016 could only be done so many times per match. Though it might be helpful in combination with the other patterns to maybe form some basic ideas.

EDIT: I think EricH and Doug Frisk nailed it.

[MARS_James]

So I am going to use the last 10 years of games to see how accurate you are. (Since 2007)

Originally Posted by Ringo5tarr

-Autonomous that scores some sort of points for simply moving

Games where this was true: 08, 14, 15*, 16 (40% and 15 did not have a moving option that scored points on it's own but I gave it to you)

Originally Posted by Ringo5tarr

-(Somewhat optional) Autonomous that scores more for more advanced options

If you mean more advanced options than just moving then that isn't somewhat optional, every game in the last 10 years have had it.

Originally Posted by Ringo5tarr

-Main scoring (the highest points for the hardest task that can be done multiple times, or perhaps a middle score for middle points)

Once again the terminology here confuses me, because if you mean the main scoring of the game piece then yes, but if you mean the hardest task or the highest point value then no. 07, 08, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 16 the hardest tasks, and highest individual point values in those games were usually done as the end game and were a 1 time deal (Except 07 where the hardest task was becoming a ramp, which gave you 0 points but your alliance a lot)

Originally Posted by Ringo5tarr

-Secondary scoring (less points for less effort, for teams who think that doing less effort may get them more points in the long run, forming strategies)

This one is tricky, 07 gave the same points regardless of rung, 09, and 10 had only 1 true scoring location, and 14 one could successfully argue that it mattered more what happened the scoring object before it was scored rather then where it was scored. and 15 had scoring so wonky (3 litter = 6 totes) that it still irritates me

Originally Posted by Ringo5tarr

-(Optional) Tertiary scoring (Something unrelated to the previous two scoring options, but still scores points)

I need an example of this, besides litter and crossing defenses this year I can't think of what this means

Originally Posted by Ringo5tarr

-Endgame with (Optional) Climbing (Usually the marking point between good teams and the kind of teams that win events, however thats correlation, not causation.)

So games without an "end game" were 08, 09, 12, 14 and 15. (50%) Of the remaining games only 10, 13, and 16 involved climbing.

Originally Posted by Ringo5tarr

SO using this sort of cookie cutter, a rookie team last year could have decided before the game was even announced that they would build a bot that could achieve the moving autonomous, secondary scoring and tertiary scoring if they had it. So then immediately after the game was announced they could spend minimal time on strategy and begin design, but I don't know how useful of a design strategy that is, so take this with a grain of salt please

I know this may come across as hurtful and that is not my intention but calling out rookie teams as teams that can't play the game to a high level is one of my pet peeves,5803 5817, and 5892, are all examples of Rookies who played this game at the highest level this year, and while they maybe couldn't do all the tasks they broke down the game just like any other team did and picked which tasks to focus on and it brought them success. If you would have said low resource teams I wouldn't have had a problem but it is just something that bugs me when a team is considered inferior because it happens to have a big number.

But looking away from that it is an interesting way to look at game breakdown and one that may work for some but I feel that it is almost like Min-Maxing in a way, which while may field a more "competitive" robot, does not fulfill the goal of the competition and organization we are a part of, which is to inspire young people to pursue a career in STEM. One of the best ways to do that is not to immediately say "Oh getting a high goal is the hardest challenge lets not even try it" it is to say "Oh getting a high goal is the hardest challenge, lets make something to do it."

[Ringo5tarr]

Originally Posted by MARS_James

I know this may come across as hurtful and that is not my intention but calling out rookie teams as teams that can't play the game to a high level is one of my pet peeves,5803 5817, and 5892, are all examples of Rookies who played this game at the highest level this year, and while they maybe couldn't do all the tasks they broke down the game just like any other team did and picked which tasks to focus on and it brought them success. If you would have said low resource teams I wouldn't have had a problem but it is just something that bugs me when a team is considered inferior because it happens to have a big number.

First things first (Kek for puns), that was not at all my intentions, and I should have simply said "any team" because I also planned on giving this idea to my team as well, because the 4000s and 5000s teams are probably going to be well ahead of us in this coming year, and I welcome them! I'm sorry I chose my words so poorly.

Originally Posted by MARS_James

I need an example of this, besides litter and crossing defenses this year I can't think of what this means

Overdrive just driving, I know you said the last 10 years but also 2004 had a lot of stuff going on.

Originally Posted by MARS_James

So games without an "end game" were 08, 09, 12, 14 and 15. (50%) Of the remaining games only 10, 13, and 16 involved climbing.

08 had placing the ball back on the rack
09 had "Super Cells"
12 had balancing the ramps

If I'm somehow wrong here, please correct me, and you're right about the climbing thing, aside from how I would call the minibots in 11 climbing, and 07 did award points for rising off the floor (but I guess I said climbing and not escalating, didn't I?) but that's why I said optional

anyhow, you're were right to tear into the post and find all the flaws in it, I need criticism wherever I can take it, especially if it doesn't hurt my rep. and once again I'm sorry about the whole rookie mistake on my part.

[MARS_James]

Originally Posted by Ringo5tarr

08 had placing the ball back on the rack
09 had "Super Cells"
12 had balancing the ramps

The only reason why I didn't really call them end games was because you could do them at any time, although thinking back you may be right about the super cells being off limits to the end.

[GeeTwo]

Originally Posted by Ringo5tarr

-Autonomous that scores some sort of points for simply moving
-(Somewhat optional) Autonomous that scores more for more advanced options
-Main scoring (the highest points for the hardest task that can be done multiple times, or perhaps a middle score for middle points)
-Secondary scoring (less points for less effort, for teams who think that doing less effort may get them more points in the long run, forming strategies)
-(Optional) Tertiary scoring (Something unrelated to the previous two scoring options, but still scores points)
-Endgame with (Optional) Climbing (Usually the marking point between good teams and the kind of teams that win events, however thats correlation, not causation.)

Even to the extent that these sorts of scores exist (though some are missing each year), the relative weights change from year to year. Even more importantly, the calculation of "qualification points" (that is, the primary determinant of who gets to be alliance captains) is always changing, sometimes in counter-intuitive ways. FIRST appears to strive to have multiple apparently viable strategies. Recognizing these recurrent "classes" of scoring may enable some simplification of strategy selection process, but the bottom line is still that you are far better off analyzing the game (1), developing your strategy(ies) to play the game (2), and THEN deciding what the relative importance of the tasks in the game are (3). Now, at step 4, you can begin to design your robot. Skipping any of game analysis, strategy, and prioritization is like rolling dice which are loaded against you.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by MARS_James

The only reason why I didn't really call them end games was because you could do them at any time, although thinking back you may be right about the super cells being off limits to the end.

Super cells were off limits until the last 20 seconds. But in order to use them, you had to be working during the rest of the match to bring back Empty Cells. That's not really an end game, more like a side objective (see also: Litter in the Landfill in 2015, damaging the 5th defense in 2016). Call it a side objective that can only be accomplished in the end game.

[SoftwareBug2.0]

Originally Posted by MARS_James

I know this may come across as hurtful and that is not my intention but calling out rookie teams as teams that can't play the game to a high level is one of my pet peeves,5803 5817, and 5892, are all examples of Rookies who played this game at the highest level this year, and while they maybe couldn't do all the tasks they broke down the game just like any other team did and picked which tasks to focus on and it brought them success. If you would have said low resource teams I wouldn't have had a problem but it is just something that bugs me when a team is considered inferior because it happens to have a big number.

Amusingly, what one of your example teams, 5803, did is consistent with that strategy: They skipped high goals in favor of low goals and a good climber.

I think it's fair to call out rookies as teams that may struggle. FIRST has a learning curve. When I think of teams from my region that stood out as successful at playing the game as rookies I think of teams like:

5803 (as you mentioned)
4488
1983
1359

But these teams all had at least something that most rookies wouldn't. For 5803 I know that they had at least one mentor who used to be with Skunkworks. For 4488 they had some folks who used to be part of 1510 or 2898. For 1983 they're literally located at aerospace-focused STEM magnet school. For 1359 I forget the exact history but they had all new students, but mentors for whom it wasn't their first rodeo.

I think I should add that I really enjoyed competing with 5803 this year and their robot design was one of my favorites.

By the way, I really enjoy working with rookie teams in general. I admire their enthusiasm, willingness to learn, and humility. I always have to stifle a laugh when I run into somebody at champs who thinks they're a big shot because their team number is three digits and they won an event as a backup bot. I still remember when people would come up to me and say "your team number is really high, like I didn't realize they gave them out that high yet."

[Bob Steele]

Originally Posted by SoftwareBug2.0

Amusingly, what one of your example teams, 5803, did is consistent with that strategy: They skipped high goals in favor of low goals and a good climber.

I think it's fair to call out rookies as teams that may struggle. FIRST has a learning curve. When I think of teams from my region that stood out as successful at playing the game as rookies I think of teams like:

5803 (as you mentioned)
4488
1983
1359

But these teams all had at least something that most rookies wouldn't. For 5803 I know that they had at least one mentor who used to be with Skunkworks. For 4488 they had some folks who used to be part of 1510 or 2898. For 1983 they're literally located at aerospace-focused STEM magnet school. For 1359 I forget the exact history but they had all new students, but mentors for whom it wasn't their first rodeo.

I think I should add that I really enjoyed competing with 5803 this year and their robot design was one of my favorites.

By the way, I really enjoy working with rookie teams in general. I admire their enthusiasm, willingness to learn, and humility. I always have to stifle a laugh when I run into somebody at champs who thinks they're a big shot because their team number is three digits and they won an event as a backup bot. I still remember when people would come up to me and say "your team number is really high, like I didn't realize they gave them out that high yet."

We had a great time working with you in our Rookie year (2007)!! both in Portland and in Las Vegas..... That was a fun ride..... ahhh memories... just 10 years ago!! Stephanie Morrison, is one of our alumni and a chief mentor for 5803 was on that team....

[rtfgnow]

Originally Posted by GeeTwo

Even to the extent that these sorts of scores exist (though some are missing each year), the relative weights change from year to year. Even more importantly, the calculation of "qualification points" (that is, the primary determinant of who gets to be alliance captains) is always changing, sometimes in counter-intuitive ways. FIRST appears to strive to have multiple apparently viable strategies. Recognizing these recurrent "classes" of scoring may enable some simplification of strategy selection process, but the bottom line is still that you are far better off analyzing the game (1), developing your strategy(ies) to play the game (2), and THEN deciding what the relative importance of the tasks in the game are (3). Now, at step 4, you can begin to design your robot. Skipping any of game analysis, strategy, and prioritization is like rolling dice which are loaded against you.

I am confused why you put (2) before (3). I would like to know the relative importance of certain tasks before deciding my game strategy. In 2015 I could see that I could score points by moving litter to the landfill and decide that was the strategy I wanted to use to play the game and then discover that it's importance is relatively low.

Did you mean (2) to be determining strategies to accomplish each scoring opportunity? Meaning a strategy to breach defenses, a strategy to weaken the tower, a strategy to challenge/scale, a strategy to defend, etc and then in steps 3 and 4 you decide which strategies you value more and which you can implement in your robot?

[GeeTwo]

Originally Posted by rtfgnow

I am confused why you put (2) before (3). I would like to know the relative importance of certain tasks before deciding my game strategy. In 2015 I could see that I could score points by moving litter to the landfill and decide that was the strategy I wanted to use to play the game and then discover that it's importance is relatively low.

Did you mean (2) to be determining strategies to accomplish each scoring opportunity? Meaning a strategy to breach defenses, a strategy to weaken the tower, a strategy to challenge/scale, a strategy to defend, etc and then in steps 3 and 4 you decide which strategies you value more and which you can implement in your robot?

The strategy you intend to play determines what YOU need the robot to do. The game design includes point values, and those are certainly part of the weighting of the strategy selection, but after you select your strategy, you design to that.

For example, this year we realized that if we could cross both instances of four categories of defense, we could ensure (or nearly so) that we would get a qualification point each match, win or lose, and that if we got eight boulders in the tower AND everybody was mobile enough to get on the batter, there was another likely one. Scaling gave game points.

Based on these considerations, our strategy was to go after those QP first, working on additional game points as a secondary item. This put importance on being able to cross four classes of defense (all but the drawbridge and sally port), and also to be able to pickup, carry, and score boulders. Based on our strategy, the drive train, low ceiling, and CDF/portcullis manipulators were top priority, the boulder pickup, carry, and score was a close second, and scaling was a distant third.

Other robots seemed to focus on scoring boulders and scaling, and were able to only cross a few defenses (at least one I saw could only do the low bar going in, though of course it could do the drawbridge or sally port on the way out). This design was apparently based on a different game strategy, but the same game rules.

Edit: To further clarify, my "Analyzing the game" includes determining the payoff, difficulty, and risk of each game activity.