FIRST Frenzy Opinion Thread

[Alaina]

When the animation first played it confused me and I was kind of scared. But once they did a couple of demos and explained a few things it was much more clear. I think it'll be a great game and I'm really looking forward to brainstorming about it (even more than I have for the past three hours while driving home from the remote kickoff). Teams that are around from 2000 will definitely have an advantage if they want the extra points.
I find the 0-2 QP range rather interesting. That still confuses me a bit (I'm sure I'll figure it out though).
Go infra-red sensors!!1! Yes!

[IMDWalrus]

Personally, I like this game a lot. Simple concept, but it's going to be very fun to watch...and to compete in.

I'm just hoping that 818's robot will do some great things this year...

[edit]Ooh...I like this likes/dislikes list idea, so...

Likes:
-All of the fun parts of the past five games rolled into one! Great for us who are relatively new to FIRST!
-Game will probably lead to diverse robot designs
-Game has two levels: basic ball-pushing (rookie) and going for the bar and bonus balls (veteran)

Dislikes:
-Robots falling off the bar onto others...that could be VERY bad
-Human players almost too important in the game
-No clowns

[Alexander McGee]

Hmm, Thumbs Down

I liked the game a lot, untill they mentioned the thing where all four teams get the losers score.

Where in the world is the motivation to do win? Even if you win ever single match, you could lose a spot in the top 8 because other teams were placed, with FIRST's oh-so-random match choosing, with very good teams.

And, the final matches are both complicated and confusing. Why have a point system? Isn't a win a win? Why make it 2 points for win, 0 points for lose, 1 for tie. Isnt it the same thing? If you win twice, dont you win!? Even win once, tie second. You still won.

As a driver, i like the feeling of competing against another team. I would rather not work with my opponent to achieve a higher score. All the exciting things will be left to the end; who can get up on the bar, and who can move the 2x multiplier. This equals a boaring game in my mind.

[BandChick]

although i am a fan of this game, i can't give it a thumbs up, not yet, anyway. i also have a couple of points to make. the stairs - not really that big of a deal, if your wheels are large enough they'll just seem like a speed bump. as well, on the not being able to goaltend, is it possible however to keep the goal as perhaps a moving target thus making scoring harder? i also agree with alex (magnasmific) that the idea of QPs is a really big turn-off. i don't like that at all, it gives away the whole idea of wanting to win, which i guess could be seen as good, but then again, it just gives such a larger chance of fixed matches. i also don't like the dependency on the human player, yes, it's nice to give them a chance to do something for more than 10 seconds, but it takes away largely from the engineering aspects of the robot, which i think will just cause less expert designs and improvement, which last time i checked, was something FIRST was big on. i'm hoping as the season goes on my opinions will change, especially come the NJ Regional in week 1, but that's my $0.02 for now.

[Andy Grady]

Originally Posted by magnasmific

Hmm, Thumbs Down

I liked the game a lot, untill they mentioned the thing where all four teams get the losers score.

Where in the world is the motivation to do win? Even if you win ever single match, you could lose a spot in the top 8 because other teams were placed, with FIRST's oh-so-random match choosing, with very good teams.

The new QP system is very similar to pre-alliance FIRST. You would be suprised at how few teams actually tie....and heck, back then they had 4 less qualifying matches! I'm just saying you might want to hold out and wait on this one to see how it turns out. As for the idea that the mixture of old game elements gives vets an advantage, I completely disagree. When you take a bunch of elements and you mix them together, the reaction of the robots will always be different because the match flow will change. I am looking at this game right now and I can't pull anything from past games for strategy right off. The only thing that might help are knowledge of mechanisms, but that doesn't necessarily mean a thing. Plus, when it comes to scoring the little balls, well, the chute for the human is right on the ground...should be fairly easy for EVERY team to do.

We shall see though, I'd say, just wait before you pass true judgement on this one. Remember, as many of these competitions as you see, you can never predict what is going to happen when you get the collective brainchild of tens of thousands of crazy students and engineers on the field!

Good Luck to all!
-Andy Grady

[Poz]

The best thing I like about this game is that it's easy to build a robot that simply gets balls to the human player (for rookie teams) which is very important, otherwise, well, no points for you... but it's also a great challenge to those experienced teams, with the 2x ball and bar, who have the knowledge and/or funds to build a robot that goes beyond everything else...

[Lil' Lavery]

I find the 0-2 QP range rather interesting. That still confuses me a bit (I'm sure I'll figure it out though).
Go infra-red sensors!!1! Yes!

Its like in hockey, you get 2 pts for a win, 1 for a tie, and 0 for a loss.
Say a team had 5 wins, 2 losses, and 1 tie(5-2-1) they would receive 11 pts.
2pts a win times 5 wins=10
+
1 pt for a tie times 1 tie=1
11 pts.

[BandChick]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Its like in hockey, you get 2 pts for a win, 1 for a tie, and 0 for a loss.
Say a team had 5 wins, 2 losses, and 1 tie(5-2-1) they would receive 11 pts.
2pts a win times 5 wins=10
+
1 pt for a tie times 1 tie=1
11 pts.

that's exactly the way one of my team members explained it to me, but still, i'm not a fan, yes, you get some benefits for winning, but it just doesn't compare

[Jake177]

I'm a little confused about the qualifying points and ranking points. What I got from the rules was that every team would be put into teirs based on how many QP's they had (win=2, tie=1, loss=0). Then the RP's would be used to rank teams within teirs. If there are 2 teams with the same qualifying score and ranking score, then they would use their highest match score. If they were still tied they would randomly pick who got sceeded higher. If this is right then there is deffinately motivation to win. If you win all 8 of your matches, even if they are all shut outs, it is highly unlikely that 8 other teams will also be undefeated, so you are very likely going to get a spot in the elimination rounds.

[Bcahn836]

This is a great combination of games of past and new. It will be exiting and a challenge but thats what we're all about isn't it?
The only question I have is that 10 ft high bar. hmmm....



Always, the kid in the red hat.

[miketwalker]

I must say, I love the game. Everyone else has already mentioned the good points, so I'm not going to be repetitive. I do have a question for one of the Lavery's/anyone though... why is there no descoring? I understand gracious professionalism, but it seems that if the opponent is just crushing you with a higher score, why can't you knock off their 2x multiplier or something? Maybe not allow complete descoring, but I think that if you could touch that 2x multiplier, it would make a competition in the end to knock off that 2x multiplier AND get on the bar... which would make even more strategy be needed in my opinion. I'd love to see some other opinions on this though. But, I love the game... very nice, and I know that there will be MANY amazing strategies this year, which I am eager to see. Good luck everyone.

[Will Hanashiro]

top 6 reasons why i love this game...

1. there are so many paths that can be taken... which will lead to more variety in robots.

2. the human player element will even out the advantage veterans have over rookies

3. easy to watch, yet tough to play, so much strategy involved.

4. short length of bar equals battling for bar, possible bots falling

5. ideas from past years were slightly modified and rules were changed, so the exact same design from past years cannot be used again for your robot (modification is necessary).
6. NO INFLATABLE CLOWNS!!!!

[BandChick]

Originally Posted by Will Hanashiro

6. NO INFLATABLE CLOWNS!!!!

yes! that is exactly what makes me happy about this game! (and Mr. Cokeley too i'm sure as this means he gets to live past tonight =) *evil laugh*)

[KenWittlief]

Also, see the new weight requirement. If you build a robot with one base with five different "tops" to do five different things based on your alliance partner, the 130 lb limit is for the base + all five parts together...at the same time...

EDIT{this is not a new requirement, this is how it has always been - when you got your bot inspected, weighted and 'boxed' all your modules had to be attached - you were free to take things off for a match if you wanted, but you could not have an unlimited box-o-attachements that you pulled modules out of whenever you felt like it.} EDIT - I might have been mistaken on this for last year - I know this was the case in previous years - but last year you might have been able to have multiple configurations, and weigh each one separately - but this year for sure everything must be on the bot at the same time when its inspected, weighed, boxed... after that you are free to take things off, but not replace them with something different.

the 2X ball - I dont see it stated anywhere that you cant snatch the 2x ball off your opponents goal - since there are only 3 of them, and 4 goals, I expect you will see this - that is not descoring, its de-multiplying.

I like the game this year. It puts more emphasis on building a positive machine - a machine that can do something beside devistate the field and push the other bots around. If you want to win your bot must be able to perform ball handling / stair climbing / bar chinning functions

and since there are several ways to score points, its unlikely that one robot will be able to do them all. In fact, there is not enough time to do everything. With 24 balls on your side of the field that only gives you 4 or 5 seconds (each) to retrieve them and have the human player shoot them - if you are going after the 2X balls, and you are dragging the porta-goal around, and you are going to climb the corporate stairway and hang yourself, well... it would be impossible to do everything in 120 seconds

teams are going to have to pick and choose - teams are going to have to choose complementary allance partners for the the playoffs

teams are going to have to choose to focus on the stationary goal, or the porta-goal (which cannot hold all 24 balls from your side BTW)

this is an excellent emulation of real engineering. There are many options, no one right answer for everyone - and in the spirit of FIRST you will have to build a machine that is productive on the field, one that can do more than interfere, inhibit and be destructive, or you wont stand a chance.

Whoever came up with this game, I have only TWO WORDS for you!

Nicely done!

[Phil 33]

I'm still not to sure what I think about this game, time will tell. But I do have a few problems with it, this is one of them

The fact that only the human players are allowed to score the small balls bothers me. I know FIRST seems to want to emphasize human-robot partnership, but think about it. Designing a robot to put balls in that small mobile goal is not hard. But, designing a robot to put balls in that static goal, which is on the platform by the stairs and whose lowest poles are 6 feet high, is much more difficult to design (especially if you're trying to make a ball device that can load into a small goal, and a big goal) Hence, I think if the robot was allowed to score the small balls, the human players would still be extremely important by sheer virtue of the fact that robots would have a rather tough time getting balls in that big goal. Thus, I think FIRST could still have achieved its goal of having the human player be extremely important. Get what I'm saying?