Opinion on This Years Game

[AJL930]

controlling the bases on your side of the field and the center base is going to be crucial for teams, because if you control the bases on your side and the center one, then that will prevent the opposition from creating more then one bonus line. The bonus lines could be what makes or breaks a match.

[Petey]

Frankly, I'm a bit disappointed.

Sure, the tetras bring in some new spice, but, fundamentally, this game is "stack attack" with a tic-tac-toe twist thrown in.

The 3vs3 thing will, I think, piss more people off in the end, because, with the same size field, your robots are going to be crunching into each other.

Not to mention the ramifications this is going to have on scoring. The discrepencies between the high ranked and low ranked teams will win, and it is even less likely that a deserving team will go to the finals. After all, one great team might be able to carry a two person alliance, but a three person alliance? Pish.

The human player interaction is abysmal. As a human player from last year--and as an athlete--I think it's a joke. Last year had a perfect meld between machine and person. This year, we have human players who are nothing more than glorified switches. Their job, literally, could be done by a trained monkey.

I understand why Dean, Woody, and the rest of the FIRST crew don't like athletes. For one, they're all nerds. Today was the first day I've seen Dean without his SEGWAY for a long time. For another thing, they are perfectly right in criticizing the disproportionate amount of influence and demagoguery that our atheletes weild among children today.

This is no excuse to cut athletics from the program, though. It is impossible to create the ubermensch Dean seems to have in mind while ignoring the body. Would it be so hard to involve a simple throwing variable? Last year was fun and dynamic. There were buzzer-beating shots!

What would I have liked to see?

A) If we had more alliance partners, increase the field size! Go to a hex shaped field.
B) Keep a human player role that required more skill than simply walking and having a certain weight.

Anyone else agree with me?

--Petey

[Wetzel]

Ask me in a few weeks. I have not yet had time to fully digest the game, but I am still very buzzed over it.

Wetzel

[Alex Pelan]

At first, I didn't like this game very much, but as I have thought about it over the hours, I've begun to notice a lot of fun nuances in this game, and I think it will end up being a good game. I think this game, despite having less goals than last year will end up with less repetitive matches because there are so many different capping combinations.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by Petey

The 3vs3 thing will, I think, piss more people off in the end, because, with the same size field, your robots are going to be crunching into each other.
[...]
If we had more alliance partners, increase the field size!

The field IS bigger.

[Petey]

Originally Posted by jgannon

The field IS bigger.

Not when you're talking about actively playable area. We increased the field floor by a 18 square foot margin, but much of that is taken up by the end zones which are, for all intents and purposes, out of play.

Also, to whoever cited the hanging system--

We've yet to see whether or not this system is fundamentally flawed.

--Petey

[Conor Ryan]

I have to say, they raised the standard of competeing very high this year, the standard kit transmision is pretty good. they set the stage for a brutal competition where only the strong survive. And this year, it will be clear in the seperation of the good and the bad.

[DrShadowSML]

I like the idea for this game. It requires a lot of strategy and teamwork. But what I would like to see is a competition to see who can make a stronger robot. Ex: do a "tractor pull" with robots. We could also have them fight other robots. I know we would be wasting money but it would be cool.

[Petey]

Originally Posted by DrShadowSML

I like the idea for this game. It requires a lot of strategy and teamwork. But what I would like to see is a competition to see who can make a stronger robot. Ex: do a "tractor pull" with robots. We could also have them fight other robots. I know we would be wasting money but it would be cool.

It would be cool if we could, in the offseason, petition Comedy Central to feature a FIRST only special edition of Battlebots where we all built gladiator bots.

--Petey

[billbuckner]

I happen to think that having partners of three is an intresting, but not a good idea. It does add challenge to the 10 point bonus for getting the robots in the end zone, but it could make massive problems if your teammates had bad robots.

[Petey]

Originally Posted by cdr1122334455

I have to say, they raised the standard of competeing very high this year, the standard kit transmision is pretty good. they set the stage for a brutal competition where only the strong survive. And this year, it will be clear in the seperation of the good and the bad.

I disagree.

In fact, I think that we'll see markedly less competition this year, and that this is the way Dean and Co. wanted it.

Think back to kickoff and Dean's speech.

Now, look at the three partner alliance. This means that

1) Three teams will be awarded the same number of QP's, not 2, which means that there will be more teams with the same QP's than there were last year
2) More teams will have the same Ranking points, for the same reasons.
3) Threee teams means that it is more unlikely that a good robot can carry an alliance. If one stellar robot is, by draw, paired with two less-than-stellar robots, that alliance will probably lose.

This is unfair. This is unfair because it is disingenuous to the very spirit of competition--any competition--to have hard work, ingenuity, and talent rewarded with loss.

It is, as AnonymousMan said, a microcosm of the same reasons Communism failed, although on a vastly less melodramatic scale. I simply draw parallels.

I predict that, at comp, you're going to have a bunch of dissatisfied teams with good robots and good strategies who are being held back by their alliance partners, and a lot of mediocre teams being vaulted to a position of prominence and winning that they do not deserve.

I know, I know--it's never been in the nature of FIRST to assure that the best team wins and moves on. But this year, we've seen a step that, instead of correcting this misguided habit, has indeed worsened this discrepancy.

--Petey

[Ben Lauer]

Originally Posted by Petey

3) Threee teams means that it is more unlikely that a good robot can carry an alliance. If one stellar robot is, by draw, paired with two less-than-stellar robots, that alliance will probably lose.

This is unfair. This is unfair because it is disingenuous to the very spirit of competition--any competition--to have hard work, ingenuity, and talent rewarded with loss.

I disagree with you.

If the game was about having one team carry an alliance, it would be 1v1, not 2v2 or 3v3. Because this game and FIRST is about cooperation and coping and adapting to the new unknowns, i think that this game will bring out teams that were previously unknown, and that a good robot is even more just a small part of winning. A great robot can be beaten easily if they have a bad strategy.

Unfair? Try to look at it this way, focus the hard work, ingenuity and talent toward a different direction. These qualities will never be rewarded with loss, only with triumph. Remember, it all comes down to the finals, and even a team with a poor record can and will be pick if they have a strategy or a quality that will be helpful in the alliance.

I think this years winners will be determined by how well the scouts and strategist pick their partners. I believe that even if the 3 best robots are put together, they can be beat by another, superior alliance.

[Billfred]

Personally, I disagree that 3v3 is bad for competition.

Originally Posted by Petey

Now, look at the three partner alliance. This means that

1) Three teams will be awarded the same number of QP's, not 2, which means that there will be more teams with the same QP's than there were last year

In a very short tournament, this is an issue. Consider Robot Rodeo--they played four matches per team, so there wasn't much of a chance to score QPs. Thus RPs became important.

However, in a FIRST-sized tourney, you're dealing with seven, eight matches. There ought to be time for the spread to grow...but if you're worried, just get more RPs.

2) More teams will have the same Ranking points, for the same reasons.

True, but remember--you will play six or eight matches. There will be time for teams' scores to go up or down, especially since every match will be different.

3) Threee teams means that it is more unlikely that a good robot can carry an alliance. If one stellar robot is, by draw, paired with two less-than-stellar robots, that alliance will probably lose.

Agreed. And that's the way it should be--the alliance with the better robots (and people controlling them) should win.

This is unfair.

This is what led me to reply. To begin with, what makes a game challenge unfair? The challenge has been presented, you build a robot and strategy to deal with the stipulations of the game. On the other hand, Dean has repeatedly said that FIRST isn't necessarily fair. Life isn't either, so write it up as good preparation.

This is unfair because it is disingenuous to the very spirit of competition--any competition--to have hard work, ingenuity, and talent rewarded with loss.

Alright, I'll warn the rookies now...

YOU WILL NOT WIN EVERYTHING IN FIRST.

Take 1293 last year. We had all three of those things, and we went 3-4-1. We weren't picked for the elimination matches. On the field, we lost. But I know that 99.9999% of our team enjoyed the experience. So much so, in fact, that we're back. So, I ask you...is that winning or losing?

It is, as AnonymousMan said, a microcosm of the same reasons Communism failed, although on a vastly less melodramatic scale. I simply draw parallels.

I'd love to see how you can compare switching to 3v3 to Communism.

I predict that, at comp, you're going to have a bunch of dissatisfied teams with good robots and good strategies who are being held back by their alliance partners, and a lot of mediocre teams being vaulted to a position of prominence and winning that they do not deserve.

I am willing to bet that the mediocre teams will not advance too far. Will a great robot with relatively lousy partners not seed high? Probably so. However, teams know talent when they see it. The good robots will be picked.

[Petey]

To those of you who have made the point that the best alliance should win--

I agree. My point is that it is rather annoying to know that you could build an awesome robot, throw in a ton of person-hours, and come up with a sick strategy--in short, do everything FIRST wants you to do--and be paired with several completely ineffective robots and be unable to overcorrect. Last year, if a robot was good enough--I mean, just dominated completely--they could carry an alliance and win. It would be their own reward. This year, we find that that won't happen as much, because now a team would have to carry two other teams.

Just my own opinion, again.

Billfred--

Certainly the game isn't fair, life isn't fair, et cetera. And yet, you think that with FIRST as a social vision, we'd be attempting to move towards fairness, or at least rewarding hard work. And I'm not sure that this game serves hard work as much as it serves the vagaries and chance of any high action game.

We'll see at comp.

--Petey

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by Petey

We increased the field floor by a 18 square foot margin, but much of that is taken up by the end zones which are, for all intents and purposes, out of play.

The entire center of the field was "unplayable" last year. Sure, you could use it, but you couldn't exactly drive over it if something else was in your way. (At least, I never saw anyone use the platform for anything other than hanging.)

Originally Posted by Petey

Three teams will be awarded the same number of QP's, not 2, which means that there will be more teams with the same QP's than there were last year

That doesn't make mathematical sense. For the sake of simplicity, let's assume that there are no ties. If each team plays nine matches, there is a total of ten different combinations of QP: 0, 2, 4, ..., 16, 18. With the new format, there will now be half again as many matches, meaning each team would get thirteen or fourteen matches, making fourteen or fifteen possible QP scores. There are still going to be as many wins as there are losses, so the scores will be spread out through the whole QP spectrum. Just imagine if everybody only played one match. A lot of people would have 2, and a lot of people would have 0. When you have more matches, there is more of a chance of different scores.