Next year: Make the game understandable

[archiver]

Posted by Andy Baker, Engineer on team #45, TechnoKats, from Kokomo High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 5/1/99 11:18 PM MST



With all of this discussion about what willl be used next year over on the Rumor Mill page, I was thinking:

'What type of game would be better for FIRST?'

FIRST's primary objective is to inspire as many students as possible, right? In order to do this, they must grow the sport (did I say SPORT!?!).

I say that in order to appeal to the masses, we need to have the robots play a game everyone can understand. Let's get rid of the floppies, ramps, pucks, and 20 inch balls.

I'd like to see 2 on 2 or 1 on 1 basketball matches, or full contact football games, or kicking a ball through a net... something that everyone can relate to.

We all know that by the time we had to explain about all of the doubler and triplers for this year's game, that we lost the attention of a few of the people who were listening.

My stance is that if the game is familiar to the masses, then the growth will happen at a more accelerated pace. For example, people will automatically know what is going on if they see two robots, one holding a basketball, and a couple of bball goals on either end of the playing field. They'd think: 'oh, those robots are playing hoops, I can relate with that!'

Don't get me wrong, FIRST had a great game this year, they just designed it for us, the people who already 'get it'. They did not design it for non-FIRST people to easily understand what the heck was going on.

So, our trade off is this: if we get a simpler game, we would get more fans, but, the game's strategy would be less of a challenge for us.

Is this worth it? Also, is my logic correct?

If so, what popular games would be best for FIRST?

Andy B.

[archiver]

Posted by Dan, Student on team #10, BSM, from Benilde-St. Margaret's and Banner Engineering.

Posted on 5/2/99 12:08 AM MST


In Reply to: Next year: Make the game understandable posted by Andy Baker on 5/1/99 11:18 PM MST:



I totally agree. I really had to simplify things when I explained it to anyone else.
I think FIRST should design games that have simple rules, but very intricate strategies. I can't think of one at the moment, but I'll try . . .
:-Dan

[archiver]

Posted by Mike King, Other on team #88, TJ², from Bridgewater Raynham and Johnson & Johnson Professional.

Posted on 5/2/99 8:03 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: Next year: Make the game understandable posted by Dan on 5/2/99 12:08 AM MST:



Tower Power, Hexagon Havoc. To a much lesser extent Torroid Terror. (If you said the Team with with the most things on the top were winning, they understood)

Mike

[archiver]

Posted by Thomas A. Frank, Engineer on team #121, The Islanders/Rhode Warrior, from Middletown (RI) High School and Naval Undersea Warfare Center.

Posted on 5/4/99 2:11 PM MST


In Reply to: Some easy to understand games posted by Mike King on 5/2/99 8:03 AM MST:



Hello All;

Ramp and Roll - the best all around game FIRST has done, IMO.

Anyone can understand it (go over, grab the ball, put it through the goalposts).

Interesting strategies - how many other teams didn't realize that each break of the plane
counts for score (remember WPI's super scoring machine)?

The few that did shooters got my vote for most interesting, even if it was a handicap to winning.

Immediate feedback on scoring (the numbers were on ther screen in near real time).

Ramps are fun and an interesting technical challenge. And can be very exciting when machines fall
down them :-)

OK, so the need to fit in a cylinder was a bad idea (to difficult for teams to be assured of
compliance - it's harder to build than a box). And 70 pounds seems so light!


Now, I liked the alliance system this year. So maybe some sort of 2 on 2 (or 3 on 3) game, with
a simple objective and immediate scoring feedback (indeed, automate the scoring system, maybe with
transponders in the objects and goal). And the boxing arena layout previously discussed is an excellent
idea - that way we can all see what's going on.

I admit it, I'm looking forward to next year (did I really write that???)

Tom

[archiver]

Posted by Michael Betts, Engineer on team #177, Bobcat Robotics, from South Windsor High School and International Fuel Cells.

Posted on 5/4/99 4:31 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Some easy to understand games posted by Thomas A. Frank on 5/4/99 2:11 PM MST:



Ahhh, I remember it well.... It was five years ago and the first time IFC/SWHS competed in FIRST. In my humble opinion, ours was the “best implementation of a losing strategy” there. Our catapult could score with the small balls from the speed bump!

I agree with Tom that it was one of the simplest games for a spectator to understand. It was also one of the most entertaining. However, FIRST got a lot of flack from the teams concerning the difficulty of building and transporting the field. It was also difficult to find places large enough to set up the field.

My main objection, back then, was that the game, year to year, was always about balls, balls and balls. My personal favorite was Torriod Terror. Handling the tubes put newbie teams on a more level playing field with the more established pros. It was also visually stimulating for the crowd.

I would like to applaud FIRST for being innovative and taking chances. I know many people, including Dean, were not happy with the way this year turned out from a spectator standpoint. However, there can be little doubt that floppies and pucks made for a great engineering challenge.

The problem FIRST has is the same one we all face in January: trying to figure out, a priori, how the game will unfold and play out given the incredible depth and diversity of imagination the teams bring to bear.

Every year they try and make the game different and better than the year before. Often, these criteria are at odds with one another. That’s just the way it is.

Mike

Post Script: Be happy that Woodie designs these games and not me... I’d have you guys dealing with incandescent (cold, chemical light) hula hoops on a tilted stage! {;-)

[archiver]

Posted by David Kelso, Coach on team #131, C.H.A.O.S.-, from Central High School and OSRAM SYLVANIA/ Fleet Bank.

Posted on 5/2/99 8:01 AM MST


In Reply to: Next year: Make the game understandable posted by Andy Baker on 5/1/99 11:18 PM MST:



I agree too. Think about what it is like to explain
this game to the''press'' who then need to sum it up for
their readers. We all need support from our communities,
but many observers have no idea what we are trying to do on
the field..that means they do not even know when to cheer.

Keep it simple, with a minimum of rules. We wish to inspire
the students and the general population. If they do not understand
what we are trying to do, they will not pay attention to our real
goals.


: With all of this discussion about what willl be used next year over on the Rumor Mill page, I was thinking:

: 'What type of game would be better for FIRST?'

: FIRST's primary objective is to inspire as many students as possible, right? In order to do this, they must grow the sport (did I say SPORT!?!).

: I say that in order to appeal to the masses, we need to have the robots play a game everyone can understand. Let's get rid of the floppies, ramps, pucks, and 20 inch balls.

: I'd like to see 2 on 2 or 1 on 1 basketball matches, or full contact football games, or kicking a ball through a net... something that everyone can relate to.

: We all know that by the time we had to explain about all of the doubler and triplers for this year's game, that we lost the attention of a few of the people who were listening.

: My stance is that if the game is familiar to the masses, then the growth will happen at a more accelerated pace. For example, people will automatically know what is going on if they see two robots, one holding a basketball, and a couple of bball goals on either end of the playing field. They'd think: 'oh, those robots are playing hoops, I can relate with that!'

: Don't get me wrong, FIRST had a great game this year, they just designed it for us, the people who already 'get it'. They did not design it for non-FIRST people to easily understand what the heck was going on.

: So, our trade off is this: if we get a simpler game, we would get more fans, but, the game's strategy would be less of a challenge for us.

: Is this worth it? Also, is my logic correct?

: If so, what popular games would be best for FIRST?

: Andy B.

[archiver]

Posted by michael bastoni of team #23, PNTA, from Plymouth North High School sponsored by Boston Edison Co.

Posted on 5/2/99 3:30 PM MST


In Reply to: Next year: Make the game understandable posted by Andy Baker on 5/1/99 11:18 PM MST:



Andy,

I feel you are right on target....the games need to have popular appeal
and part of the 'algebra' of popular appeal is understanding the game.

In addition to understanding it...it must have some 'sex' appeal...and that
is why it is so important to allow aggressive contact and yes...even knockdowns..
in fact encourage knockdowns...

Why was Robot Wars (Currently defunct due to a lawsuit) immediately popular
nation wide after only 1 or 2 tv appearances.....

I'll guess 3 reasons..

1.) What you noticed Andy..the game was REALLY easy to understand..
Any average Joe surfing through the channels lands on a Robot Wars game and he or she
immediately 'gets it'..like WWF Wrestling....

2.) It was immediately apparent who was winning and who was losing. This
certainly makes it worth watching....it actually resulted in the
average channel surfer putting down the remote and setteling in for the
duration of the program.

3.) This is for you JJ....That average channel surfer IMMEDIATELY recognized
the game from year to year....cause it remained simple and unchanged.


Now I'm NOT advocating we keep the game the same forever....
Just do not change it EVERY YEAR....why is that such a big
compromise....what is the difference between 12 months and
say 24 or 36 or even 48 months....c'mon think about it...give up
so little,,,,,possibly gain so very much...

The flag waves on....and I both welcome and admire dissent...
Remember, that's how this great country got started....

The Heretic,
Mr.B

[archiver]

Posted by Dan, Student on team #10, BSM, from Benilde-St. Margaret's and Banner Engineering.

Posted on 5/2/99 3:59 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Next year: Make the game understandable posted by michael bastoni on 5/2/99 3:30 PM MST:



>>>>Why was Robot Wars (Currently defunct due to a lawsuit) immediately popular
nation wide after only 1 or 2 tv appearances.....

[archiver]

Posted by Andrew Trax, Coach on team #180, S.P.A.M., from Southfork,Martin Co. High and UTC.

Posted on 5/2/99 4:11 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Next year: Make the game understandable posted by michael bastoni on 5/2/99 3:30 PM MST:



Okay. Let's combine issues.
1 - Rules complicated.
2 - Game not recognizable.
3 - Rookie teams at a disadvantage if game repeats.
4 - Loads of suggestions in the forum about minimum qualifications.

1 & 2 - football is complicated to someone who's never seen it but
because we grow up with it we all can explain it, at least broadly.
So make the current game less complex & familiar by simplifying & repeating it....
but (3) make the specs for the robot different for the 'pro'
teams - say, cut the weight by 30 lbs. or increase the height to 48' min. The
spec change would allow for the element of surprise for Kickoff, which some
of us look forward to. It would give the new, or even bottom ranked, teams
(4) a chance to grow and learn from the previous year. And the weight or size
change could almost be a handicap, like in golf, and even the playing field.
That would make strategy even more important. I'd even keep the 'functionally
identical replacement' rule for the pros.
Make it better, not over. Great slogan for a tee shirt.

Mrs. Trax

[archiver]

Posted by Joe Johnson, Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 5/2/99 7:06 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Next year: Make the game understandable posted by michael bastoni on 5/2/99 3:30 PM MST:



I love this thread.

Thanks Andy for starting it.

Thanks Mr. B for stirring the pot.

Ultimately, this question I think that this thread raises is:

Is FIRST ready for Prime Time?

Sadly, I think that the answer is clearly NO. I hate to admit it, but this thing we love is just too complicated for the masses.

FIRST is trying to make it more exciting while allowing robots to play more than one match, a difficult balancing act.

If FIRST is not ready for Prime Time, then I see us as having 3 paths forward:

1) Forget about Prime Time. This is a niche sport with niche fans.

2) Change for format to make it more TV friendly.

3) Become so popular, that the definition of what ready for Prime Time is changed sufficiently to include FIRST as ready.


#1 is my sort of nightmare scenerio. While I really enjoy attending the competitions and impacting the kids on my team and my immediate community, I got into FIRST because I felt that it was going to change the culture of America in ways that I thought were important and necessary.

While Dean can talk all he wants about this not being a science fair, it IS still just a science fair in my mind (only granted a very large and expensive one) as long as we have not had the cultural impact that I think is central to the mission.

I think that some of #2 and a lot of #3 are the real long-term solutions.

I think that some changes can be made to make the game more TV and non-fanatic friendly. What I hope is that we don't make so many compromises in order to become popular that we forget that what FIRST is about is changing what folks consider to be popular. It is a VERY tricky balance.

And yet, I am still bullish on the future of FIRST.

Joe J.

[archiver]

Posted by Dan, Student on team #10, BSM, from Benilde-St. Margaret's and Banner Engineering.

Posted on 5/2/99 7:21 PM MST


In Reply to: is FIRST ready for Prime Time? posted by Joe Johnson on 5/2/99 7:06 PM MST:



>>>2) Change for format to make it more TV friendly.

[archiver]

Posted by Daniel, Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M Gunn Senior High School and NASA Ames.

Posted on 5/3/99 1:05 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: is FIRST ready for Prime Time? posted by Dan on 5/2/99 7:21 PM MST:



Personally I feel that ever robot I saw in Florida was worthy of prime time. For a high school project FIRST is pretty sophisticated stuff. Just think, while other high schools are building cardboard boats (not in the least a boring project), we have hundreds of kids working on ten foot tall ROBOTS. Mechanical Michael Jordan’s. And you say that's not worthy of prime time?

Besides, since when are students not good enough to build a 'ready for prime-time' robot? Students are capable of building machines to rival even the most engineer-built 'bots out there. Take G-Force for example. Two things on that ‘bot were done professionally. Little things. One was a bend in a sheet of aluminum that was too large to fit in our bender (just to put it into perspective). I give only this example ‘cuz I know our 'bot pretty well, but I'm sure there are quite a few others out there.

It's just a pet peeve of mine when people imply that students can’t do impressive stuff on their own. Sure there will be a few boxes with wheels out there, but the majority of robots you see in Florida are pretty $@#$@#$@#$@# impressive.


I was blown away this year.
-Daniel

[archiver]

Posted by Tom Vanderslice, Student on team #275, ORHS/AST/Hitachi, from Academy of Science and Technology and Hitachi.

Posted on 5/3/99 4:38 PM MST


In Reply to: Not one 'bot was not worthy posted by Daniel on 5/3/99 1:05 AM MST:



: Personally I feel that ever robot I saw in Florida was worthy of prime time. For a high school project FIRST is pretty sophisticated stuff. Just think, while other high schools are building cardboard boats (not in the least a boring project), we have hundreds of kids working on ten foot tall ROBOTS. Mechanical Michael Jordan’s. And you say that's not worthy of prime time?

: Besides, since when are students not good enough to build a 'ready for prime-time' robot? Students are capable of building machines to rival even the most engineer-built 'bots out there. Take G-Force for example. Two things on that ‘bot were done professionally. Little things. One was a bend in a sheet of aluminum that was too large to fit in our bender (just to put it into perspective). I give only this example ‘cuz I know our 'bot pretty well, but I'm sure there are quite a few others out there.

: It's just a pet peeve of mine when people imply that students can’t do impressive stuff on their own. Sure there will be a few boxes with wheels out there, but the majority of robots you see in Florida are pretty $@#$@#$@#$@# impressive.

:
: I was blown away this year.
: -Daniel

I don't think he was really trying to imply that the robots were unworthy
of prime time...all the robots were awesome...but i think it was more
of a thing like...not many of the robots (both engineer built and student built)
worked ALL the time...and when people watch prime time they want to see
stuff work...things do well...i mean...why did nobody watch the Florida
Marlins last year...or the LA Clippers...or other bad teams...b/c they want
to watch stuff do well and stuff work...its no fun to watch things not
work...

You know all the robots were worthy of prime time, I know all the robots
were worthy of prime time, all of us on here know all the robots were
worthy of prime time, but we're already there...convincing the public
how much work this was and how much fun it is to watch...etc...and how
worthy it is of prime time is another story....

Not to look like a cynic...but...

Tom
Team 275

[archiver]

Posted by Joe Johnson, Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 5/3/99 6:59 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Not one 'bot was not worthy posted by Tom Vanderslice on 5/3/99 4:38 PM MST:



I was not implying anything about the robots in the competition.

I am talking about folks like my wife, who could care less about watching a FIRST competition.

It is not the robots that matter, though perhaps flashier robots would help some, the main thing is the format (the game, the competition structure, the rules of engagement, etc.)

Joe J.

[archiver]

Posted by Jon, Engineer on team #190, Gompei, from Mass Academy of Math and Science and Worcester Polytechnic Institute.

Posted on 5/5/99 5:01 PM MST


In Reply to: Robots readiness is not the issue, format is posted by Joe Johnson on 5/3/99 6:59 PM MST:



part where i just go me too:
The format is definitely what needs work... the game is great for us but takes too long to explain to people who probably don't get it by the time you're done...

part where i ramble some original rambles:
I've been involved these last two years and am beginning to develop a taste for what i like and what i don't like.
-> I liked this year's alliance based system but didn't like the way that you could be brought down by a lack of alliance member... maybe's that's just one for the Life Lessons corner.
-> I preferred last year's scoring a little because it was easier to watch the scoring and get what was going on while this year's was so iffy about things like if the floppies weren't completely over 8' or a bot wasn't over 2'... that just wasn't nose-bleed-stands friendly (although i know not many things are...)
-> I didn't like last year's 3 team thing because it would turn on 2 on 1 and ruin the match while this year's alliance-based system was cool in that you got Rock'm-Sock'm robot action and it was supposed to happen...

If the scoring wasn't so iffy... this year's game would have been so outsider-friendly... i have to admit that it was easy to explain to people: 'well, you gank those floppy things and lift them 8' and then take the wooden puck over there and yoink it from the other team and hold on to it for points....'
I suppose that until we come up with someway around it, we'll just have to deal with the itty bitty tiebreakers... (wow.. score one for captain obvious

Jonathan