Favorite FIRST Game

[Jeff Rodriguez]

I've been involved since '99 and I'd say that 2006 Aim High is the best.
Very easy for spectators to watch (more shots, more points).
Easy to tell who's winning (real time score).
Exciting (balls flying, robots pushing, robots tipping).

2000 was also and exciting game with robots flying across the field as fast as they could to grab the black ball.

[Bill Beatty]

2001 for sure

No penalties. No rough play. No tipping. No pinning. No high hitting. No disqualifications. No box with wheels canceling out a well designed robot. Rookie teams could participate at whatever level they wanted.

Only one referee needed and he didn't have anything to do except count the score at the end. Many subtle aspects too numerous to go into here.

Mr. Bill

[Joe Matt]

Originally Posted by Andy Baker

It was... interesting. Many things have changed since them, not just the game. Get this:

This was back when teams did not know who their alliance partners were for the upcoming qualification matches. For instance, you knew that you were in match 61 or 62, but not exactly which one. So, this meant that you had to scout and pre-plan with 7 other teams for that match, not just 3.

The field quers would bring 8 teams into a corral, and then they would look at their secret match sheet and pull 4 of you ahead for the upcoming match. At that point, you had about 4-5 minutes to plan the entire match.

This was back when 2 coaches were allowed for each team.

Needless to say, this 4-5 minute strategy planning session did not always go as teams wanted it to. On the field, only 1 team could physically balance the bridge... but all 4 teams might have wished to show that they could do it.

There was much debate. Stronger personalities (and louder people) were heard, and salesmanship had to be put forth in order for your team to get the chance for the balance job. Many of these strategy planning sessions got to be arguements, since the pressure was on.

So... at the end of the year, people complained "too many coaches were on the drive teams!"... and "no more adult coaches!" Also, other people complained "why can't you just tell us who our alliance partners are on Friday morning?" In 2002, both changes happened, as only 1 coach was permitted in the box, and we all knew our qualification lineups on Friday morning. Since then, these strategy meetings have gone much smoother. The most important improvement was not the omission of the 2nd coach, but rather the information about which teams you are partnered with.

Andy B.

Baker, don't forget my personal favorite from 2001, the 30 second matches!

[Joe J.]

Aim High... robots got to shoot balls for goodness sake!


But beyond that it allowed for the sometimes under appreciated area of game play: defense!
Aim High takes the best autonomous in my opinion, not only was there two different ways to score some big points and the 10 point bonus but defensive autonomous modes added a whole other level of strategy (sure there were defensive auto modes before but not many or as valuable).
As for viewer friendly Aim High was fairly easy to catch on to and under stand.
I think the GDC was dead on with this years game, and the manual which had the fewest rule changes I've seen in my 4 years in FIRST.

I voted Aim High but Triple Play is still a close second. I liked it because it was so simple and accessible for teams to play, I was at all three Michigan regionals last year and can't remember seeing a single robot with out an arm (or stacking device). The game was easy to follow though keeping track of score was sometimes confusing. I loved the autonomous mode's goal but capping the Vision Tetra was quite rare.

I did like FIRST Frenzy: Raising the Bar. Loved the robots hanging ten feet up part. Yes there were a lot of different ways to play but that may have provided times when there was too much going on to follow clearly.

I like the theory behind Stack Attack, competitive box stacking that seemed fun. But sadly at GLR and WMR not much of that happened . It seemed to me that this was the ultimate "box on wheels" game (not to insult anyones design) but most of the game time seemed to be focused on pushing boxes out of the scoring zones.

[Karthik]

It's all about 1999, by far the most dynamic game in FIRST history. You had this 6" high (iirc) octagon on caster wheels, with a couple of metal poles sicking up, known as the "puck" that could be dragged around the field. Alliances were awarded multipliers if the puck was on a certain side of the field. But to make things even cooler, you were awarded multipliers if your robot was on the puck. Wait, it gets better. The definition of being on the puck was to be touching it, and be 2" off the ground. So some teams would grab the pole, and lift themselves off the ground.

I've only talked about multipliers, how did teams score points? Well the scoring objects were these disc shaped pillows known as "floppies". You had one point for every floppy of your colour not touching the ground, and 3 points for each floppy of your colour that was at least 8' off the ground at the end of the match,

So picture this, you have robots pulling the puck. You have robots climbing the puck. You have tug of wars for the puck. Teams pushing teams off the puck. To make it even cooler, at the end of the match, you have all these baskets of floppies being raised over 8' in the air, while teams are being pushed! It was a phenomenal game. The best ever.

[George1902]

I couldn't have said it better, Karthik. 1999 was an outstanding game.

Originally Posted by Karthik

Well the scoring objects were these disc shaped pillows known as "floppies".

Also known as "landmines" by drivetrain enthusiasts. =-]

[Dan Petrovic]

Originally Posted by Philmont629

I like the theory behind Stack Attack, competitive box stacking that seemed fun. But sadly at GLR and WMR not much of that happened . It seemed to me that this was the ultimate "box on wheels" game (not to insult anyones design) but most of the game time seemed to be focused on pushing boxes out of the scoring zones.

Our robot was the ultimate "box on wheels". We never won any regionals but we won 3 out 4 mini-competitions we went to, including Battlecry, the IRI of New England. That's why Stack Attack was one of my favorites out of the games from 2002 on. However, since watching a video of Stack Attack recently, I realized that it was kind of a boring game. Autonomous was the most interesting part. What's cooler than a robot flying up a ramp at full speed into a wall of boxes?

I didn't like Raising the Bar because there wasn't much strategy involved. Usually the strategy was... hang. Throw your 6 balls into the goals, cap it and hang.

Triple Play is my favorite. I really like the games that took a bit of extra thinking. Aim High is one of those. Triple Play took a lot of thinking on your toes and it was very back-and-forth with rows and such. I liked the idea of extra points scored based on your strategy. Also, if you are behind, you can come back with a row. Aim High, you can't really do that. Also, our robot performed well... and stuff, but that's another story.

Aim High is wicked cool. Nothing is cooler than something shooting another something. It has to be the most impressive game thus far. What's more impressive than arbitrarily moving your robot, pushing a button, and having your camera re-aim your shooter dead on? So that the next person who came along and pulls that trigger will score. It's a really fun game to watch, but the design phase was painful. At least it was for us.

[Nuttyman54]

I'd have to say either FIRST Frenzy or Diabolical Dynamics. Both games had many ways to play and so many different robots. Aim High would be next, just from the sheer awsomeness of shooting balls and multiple periods. Also, making autonomous really count was a GREAT addition.

[=Martin=Taylor=]

Originally Posted by Nuttyman54

Also, making autonomous really count was a GREAT addition.

I agree. After all, robots are supposed to be autonomous. I hope they make autonomous mode important again next year.

[Ryan Dognaux]

FIRST Frenzy was my favorite game. It just seemed like it was a culmination of elements from many previous years games - like the best part of each game combined into one mega game. It was great.

But coming close was Stack Attack. What could be better than seeing robots autonomously (a first that year) racing up the ramp and driving through a huge wall of containers.

Triple Play was good too, but my least favorite of the games I've been involved with is Zone Zeal (2002). By the end of the year, it seemed like it was just a huge pushing match.

[Andy Baker]

My favorite was 1999, but that was probably due to the way our robot was tooled to play the game. Seeing 4 robots on the "puck", all with baskets 10 feet in the air was pretty cool.

With the development of FIRST robot technology, game strategy, and drivetrain improvements, that game would be amazing to see again.

Come to think of it... any game from 1995-2000 would be neat to see played with today's robots.

Andy B.

[travis48elite]

My favorite game would have to be without a doubt 2004's Rising The Bar. During the game the human player had to shot these huge playground balls into these stationary and moveable goals. Near the end of the game robots had to climb onto a platform then hang from a 10ft high bar. My secound favorite would have to be AIM HIGH that game was so funny you have to litteraly take for cover if a robot is pushed in into another direction. That was something that I saw alot at the earlier regionals.

[gren737]

alright, i so voted for hexagon havoc....the games were much simpler then, but i have to admit that was a really fun game to play, 2 size balls, 1 central goal, and the bigger ball was the max dimensions of the robot.

it was the first year for a human player

there were no rules about pinning (i think our team pinnning another for 1:30 might have been the reason for the 10 second pinning rule announced in 1997)

there was also intentional flipping...there were robots with forklifts on the front that would drive up to you and tip you over.

also it was 1vs1vs1. no alliances, to make it to the finals meant you needed an amazing robot. i like alliances, but i also somewhat miss seeing robots that were made to play by themselves and not rely on another robot to help them.

plus you could flip over the goal and the "goal lines" still extended straight up in the orientation of the goal, we won the "best play of the day" at rumble at the rock by flipped the goal towards our human player and loading him up with balls, which all counted when the scoring was done, it was awesome!

second favorite FIRST frenzy, then torroid terror, then i dunnoo it's a tossup between aim high and triple play

[Ken Loyd]

Come to think of it... any game from 1995-2000 would be neat to see played with today's robots.

Andy B.[/quote]

Andy, once again you have hit upon a great idea. I enjoyed the "puck" game as well. I am not sure if we were ever able to pick up a floppy from the floor but we could climb the side pole like a weed.

Playing the old games would be great. I think we may still have the puck in the back of our storage room (missing some pieces.)

Ken

[Lil' Lavery]

Aim High, but it was basically a tie with FIRST Frenzy. Both of those games were quick paced, exceptionally exciting, and had lots of action. Tough defense, balls flying through the air, scrambles for "king of the hill points" (in the form of the bar in 2004 and the ramp this year), etc.
I liked the wide open field design in 2006 more though, and that's what gave it a slight edge. More room to maneuver, fewer bottlenecks, etc.

I'm surprised so many people have said 2003, Stack Attack. From the general consensus of other areas in the forums it seemed like nobody liked that game. Too much defense, and a lack of reliable and quick stackers seemed to plague its public perception.

I don't really like the 2001 or 2002 games. 2001 was confusing for spectators, hard to score quickly, and lacked an opponent (4 v 0, eww). Plus the elimination ranking system was actually biased to the #1 seed that year. It was 5 teams per alliance, with 2 teams automatically paired (1&5, 2&6, 3&7, 4&8), with the 1st alliance getting the first pick in each round of the selection "draft". 2002 was a bit chaotic for my taste. The zones could get confusing, especially if you were not familiar with the game.

2005 had it's charm. It has the most obvious strategy of any game (but many games have vast layers of underlying strategy that many people do not recognize), but tended to be not as exciting as other games. Defense was very limited, and there was no autonomous interaction. I really liked the move to 3 v 3 instead of 2 v 2 though.

I'm not really familiar with any game before 2000, and my interaction with the 2000 game was limited, although from the bits I can remember, it was exciting.