What do you think of the design of the game?

[dlavery]

Katy-

Thank you very much for your thoughts.

While I may agree with many of your insights, and disagree with others, the thing that I appreciate the most is the mature, thoughtful, well reasoned presentation of your opinions. By providing supporting information to back up your opinions, you have helped us see the careful consideration and thought that you put into each one. This type of carefully crafted discourse helps raise the level and quality of the entire discussion, no matter which side of the debate you may be on. Well done.

-dave

[ChuckDickerson]

What do I think? I think Katy is just about 100% spot on. Katy seems to have a nack for predicting how the game will play out over the season and I think she may have done it again this year. Katy, thank you for your well thought out post. It is refreshing with all the "why I don't like this game" posts going around. I would surely give you positive rep but it says I must "spread some around first".

For the record I like the game and commend the GDC for the bold steps taken this year to reduce the gap between the rookies and the vets and toward the excessive defensive play we had started to see in the last couple of years. I pretty much like the GAME 100%. So far (as far as the ROBOT rules go) the only thing I am not really excited about is the mandatory bumper rule and for some reason I think the 75" flag rule is going to be a bit of an issue. Of course, I am still absorbing all the rules so my opinion may change but right now I like 95% of it. On the plus side the revised "tape" rule is great. I just wish it was worded that way LAST YEAR!

[MrForbes]

I think the game design is really nifty....who'da thunk we'd be racing cars in a FIRST competition? A dream come true

[stevek]

All I can say is, every year we are in stunned silence after the game description ends. We wait impatiently as Dave, Woody, and Dean play a mock game show- only to finally get the unlock code to see what it is all about. Yes the initial game seemed Simple, 40inch balls dont sound all that hard, till you pick them up!!! Knocking it off the tack- no problem (what a height restiction?)- (hair falls to the floor) [ok they deleted that one- thank goodness] Then our wheels start turning as we read through all the Game and Robot Rules and solidify the size and scale of the field apperatus, and then it hits us... there are true problems to solve, there are enginering feats to accomplish and in 10 minutes the pizza is arriving!

I think this is the other side of complexity and if we simply build a miniture nascar racebot, we may miss some pretty improtant mind streching lessons.

Once again, good luck to you all.

[GUI]

I really like how the game makes teams change their design strategy. It seems that in previous years, the approach to chassis design has been to make the beefiest, strongest pushing machine. However, Overdrive requires a very different approach. This not only forces teams to broaden their horizons and consider other aspects of chassis design; it also seems like it will level the playing field a bit. Instead of veteran teams improving upon tried and trued designs while rookies are learning the basics, the older teams have to take a few steps back and learn same new things as well.
Overdrive also seems more spectator-friendly. Most everyone understands the concept of a race, so it's easier to understand what is going on if you haven't read the rules. There also seems to be something appealing about the concept of robots throwing giant balls while traveling at high speeds...

[Katy]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed
There are a couple more things I would've like. Corner banking or a variety of hurdle. I'm thinking like the barrier in the 2001 game that teams could use to drive under, climb over or have the teeter totter ramp to go up and down with on the turns.

I agree with you that a few obstacles in the way might do some good, if for no other reason than to make the robots drive slower. I'm imagining a few of the robots that really gun it will hit the glass hard. Severe impacts can mess up the electronics on the game field.

If I was mentoring a team this year I'd have them put thick rubbery sticky feet on the bottom of the driver control board to prevent parts from being knocked loose or the whole board coming down off the tray. I mean you probably won't need it but if it is easy to prevent and costs neither weight nor build time (as you can make your controller holding board after ship) why not prevent it?

But that's neither here nor there. Stuff on the field is something I would personally favor but I can see why they didn't do it.

CG is going to be an awfully big problem in the game already with a completely flat field. If you tilt the field you're more likely to tilt the robots. With a flat field you can have the drive train really hug the ground and lower the CG somewhat. Normally when there are obstacles on the field the very base of the drive train needs to come up off the ground a little or your drive train is likely to bottom out on the slopes. If they banked the sides robots would probably be more likely to bottom out and, unless they were going fast, tip in. This is aside from the confines of space and money for low budget teams.

That said? We have a CG problem this way too. I think a lot of teams are going to try to turn too fast (I mean there isn't much space) and tip. Once again this is a significant technical challenge but I'm not sure if it is a depth of challenge that a non-technical spectator will appreciate. Time will tell I guess.

Originally Posted by GUI
I really like how the game makes teams change their design strategy. It seems that in previous years, the approach to chassis design has been to make the beefiest, strongest pushing machine. However, Overdrive requires a very different approach. This not only forces teams to broaden their horizons and consider other aspects of chassis design; it also seems like it will level the playing field a bit. Instead of veteran teams improving upon tried and trued designs while rookies are learning the basics, the older teams have to take a few steps back and learn same new things as well.

I'm excited to see that this encourages veterans to rethink things too. I hope the change is severe enough to actually force them to innovate (but only time will tell how they respond).

I'm not sure I agree with you about it being about the "beefiest, strongest pushing machine." I think we have seen a big emphasis on pushing in several games however. A few games have emphasized maneuverability. Some people say this game emphasizes a high top speed. I'm not entirely sure about that. I think at least as much of it (given field size and the raw amount of stuff floating around) is in good acceleration. That is (according to history as far back as I know it) totally new.

[Taylor]

I've been in FRC for Aim High and Rack 'n Roll, and I joined right before the IRI, so I got to see Triple Play.
I will have to say this is far and away my favorite FRC game. I see this game design as much more of an "equalizer" than the much maligned teaming algorithm used in last year's regionals.
This will certainly be an action-packed, amazing game with incredible ingenuity and elegant designs. All teams, regardless of experience or resources, will be able to contribute to their alliances.

[Andrew Schreiber]

I must say that this game is unique. As a software person I am not a huge fan of the Hybrid mode. Especially the rules about not using sequences of buttons to do different things. Also, the fact that we are not allowed to use the camera this year seems like a step in the wrong direction. Maybe there are teams out there that would prefer to use a camera and have the robot find the balls itself rather than have a human do it. Yes the camera was a hassle for a lot of people and was often too much for a rookie team but for veteran teams, or just as a fun thing for the programmers to play with while they waited for the day of ship to get the robot it was quite useful. And besides, Darpa didn't have people with remotes controlling their robots why should FRC?

My personal complaints about hybrid mode aside I like this game. I mean it is very very unique. And as far as an equalizer between rookies and veterans it looks to be a success. I can't say how it will be to watch, it is just too nascar for me, but I can say that already I have had a lot of fun thinking up ways to play it. From a learning standpoint the students have a lot of different things to learn in this game.

I agree that there should be some sort of walls or maybe netting around the field to prevent those big balls from leaving the field straight into the sound/scoring tables.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Start your robots.

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by Damien1247

I must say that this game is unique. As a software person I am not a huge fan of the Hybrid mode. Especially the rules about not using sequences of buttons to do different things. Also, the fact that we are not allowed to use the camera this year seems like a step in the wrong direction. Maybe there are teams out there that would prefer to use a camera and have the robot find the balls itself rather than have a human do it. Yes the camera was a hassle for a lot of people and was often too much for a rookie team but for veteran teams, or just as a fun thing for the programmers to play with while they waited for the day of ship to get the robot it was quite useful. And besides, Darpa didn't have people with remotes controlling their robots why should FRC?

Uhmmm.... can you point to anywhere in the rules where it says you are not allowed to use a camera?

"Not including a camera in the Kit Of Parts," and "not being allowed to use a camera" are two different things.

-dave

[ebarker]

Personally I really like this years program. It has something for everyone.

I like the fact that a team of limited means and experience can participate in a meaningful way and feel good and earn points and have good experience.

I like the fact that there is a lot of potential for automation controls gurus to create cool control things at all sorts of levels of complexity.

I like the fact that a team with a lot of mechanical manipulation talents can strut their stuff.

I like the fact that there is enough twists and turns in the rules to keep young minds a churning.

I like this game.

[Faith]

I like it.

It provides a big challenge (hurdling a heavy, slippery, BIG ball over a 6.5ft high, 3ft wide overpass) for veteran teams to try, while at the same time giving rookie teams a challenge that is still within their reach (manipulating the ball to get it around the field, or making a robot that can quickly circle the field).

It may have some traffic dilemmas, but I don't think anyone will be able to tell until the first competition. It is the same size field, but that wall in the middle makes it seem so much smaller... We'll see.

I also like this game because it makes choosing a strategy very difficult. There are so many ways to score, so many ways to work together as a team to get the balls around the track faster, more efficiently, or decide to work less as a team and have each robot just try to score as many points as they can. Or defensive strategies can be considered, such as blocking the ball as someone is trying to hurdle, or hurdling at the right time so as to slow someone else down, or many other strategies. Scouting will be important, as you don't just care about the robot's abilities, but also their favored strategy. Autonomous mode diagrams to help you decide how to best defend against an opponent or how to avoid autonomous defense will be less reliable, because in hybrid mode it seems much easier to change your path, whether at the beginning of the 15 seconds or on the fly.

I think this will be a spectacular game.