Favorite FIRST Game

[Katie Reynolds]

Though I wasn't really involved in FIRST then, both 1999 and 2000 looked like awesome games. I'd love to see them (or something similar) repeated now!

As for games I've been around for, 2002 has my vote for everything. It was a great game, difficult but not impossible, had a lot to do, and was very viewer-friendly!

[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. =-]

[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

[Tetraman]

All time favorite was Tripple Play. But I will agree that the best was raiseing the bar. Thhere was more to it so there was more to think about and robots were different. I also liked Co-Operation. But I had a blast as the Tetra human player, so I'm one sided.

[the_short1]

triple play all the way. I loved the tic tac toe style game, where it really matered to defend your home/middle row against line theifs, it also had lots of posibilities for manuvering a tetra.. i loved it.

[Tim Baird]

Originally Posted by Jeff Waegelin

2000, for sure. I only saw one off-season event that year, but that game was amazing. It had fairly simple scoring, it was pretty well balanced, exciting to watch, and had a great "finishing move" with the original hanging bar. All together, it made for a great game to watch, and a great game to play.

I agree whole-heartedly. Aside from my obvious personal attachment to that year, I loved that game because of its simplicity. 2v2, balls all over the place, and the constant stealing/restealing of the black balls added a whole other dimension to the game. I also loved that it was easy (atleast from the drivers' station) to see the current score. It made predicting the outcome simpler and allowed for teams to better coordinate the final score so as to help the loser but to also boost the QPs (that year you received 3 times the losers score).

[AmyPrib]

Hands down.... 2004.

I have watched video from every year of FIRST, I have seen all the games. Didn't experience all of them, but have watched them. Very edge of your seat type of action, with the 2x capping, or the hanging on the bar, or shooting those balls into the goal at the buzzer... whooo!

The amount of diversity in robot design and strategy was simply amazing. Your robot could do EVERYthing, or it could do ONE thing extremely well, and you were STILL a top contender. I think that would definitely be an interesting game these days with 3v3. With 3 main tasks, you could have a robot alliance each with a unique functionality.

The automode was good - not too weak, not too overbearing. I don't recall much of a trend of winning automode leading to winning the match, or vice versa. There was a choice of things to do, terrain variety (small/big steps), so many different designs for manipulating 2x or small balls, as well as different designs for hanging..... And the all-in-one robots were just awesome.

Oh yeah, and it was pretty specatator friendly, and pretty visual as to who was winning.

The only drawback was the amount of human player interaction. Many people thought it was too much - and it may have been just a bit too much. But, it was insanely exciting to watch, on video and in person. So to go from that to 2005 where there was essentially one task, and lack of robot diversity was sorta disappointing..

Anywho.. 2004..

[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.

[Tim Baird]

Originally Posted by Ogre

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

Playing against you guys in 2000 (Rage) was so annoying. You'd start off in your high speed, zip diagonally across the field and take our black ball before we even got there. Such a good strategy!

[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.