What do you think of the design of the game?

[Katy]

Well guys we have all had some time to mull this one over and so now I am curious to know, what do you all think of the game design?

I think this is clearly one of the most unique game designs that FIRST has had. So many years scoring is either "put [shape x] on [shape y]" or "put [shape x] in [goal y]" This game can be commended on its uniqueness.

I am quite surprised that they have returned "real time scoring" to the game instead of having the majority of the score be done by the "end of game state." How do you think the spectators will respond to this? People talk about the issues that arose from Toroid Terror. Are we facing repeats here?

I am slightly concerned that the spectator may also lose some of the entertainment value in the way the game is set up. The balls are a significant engineering challenge in their weight and size but I am not sure how well this will compute to a more general audience. The ratio of scoring objects to robots means that this will not turn into robots simply doing laps but it is concerning that in some matches this may equate to two teams not contributing much to the game.

I am concerned about seeing a lot of robots on their sides. Adding 10 pounds to the robot 20 inches from wherever the possession mechanism starts is no small deal. That's just for possession too mind you, not even talking about putting it over the bars or on the bars. I understand that many people think tetras are a reasonable beginning estimate of the weight but the big deal in CG is that the effective center of the ball is much higher because it is a bigger object. It is also heavier than a tetra. Also remember that when tetras are laying on their sides they have a much lower CG than a spherical ball of the same weight. This is because a lot of the weight on the tetra comes from the pieces that are physically resting against the ground.

This game has effectively destroyed conventional perceptions of "playing defense." I'm sure somebody is going to figure out how to do it but our conventional methods are unlikely to be any good. This is a bold step. I think it is a step in the right direction because this is a change only veteran teams will feel. Rookie teams don't know "how things have always been done" so they aren't going to have issues thinking of "a new way." Everything they think of is effectively "a new way" for them. Veteran teams will have to think outside the box. This keeps the game challenging for them.

It is nice to see the little ways in which FIRST is changing things up with this game. I'm happy to see the human player has been switched out for the robocoach. This isn't really because I dislike the human player so much as because it is great to see a new setup. It is also extreamely realistic and relevant to applied work in the field of robotics.

I'm also thrilled to see that the field is a new shape. I know that people always say they want big field changes but as FIRST likes to use specific venues for competitions more dramatic changes probably aren't reasonable. This change of the angled corners is subtle but in my personal opinion very significant. The idea of "corners" is gone and the idea of finding an out of the way place to be is gone. Theoretically a robot from any position can be asked to move if another robot gets into the position where the first position is "blocking traffic."

There is one thing that is absolutely crystal clear however. FIRST should be commended for doing an excellent job in designing a field that low-budget teams can easily emulate even with severe space and budgetary constraints.

Well that's my two cents. What do you all think?