WHICH GAME IS BETTER?!?!?!?

[ttldomination]

Which game do you like better?

Face-Off or Elevation?

[ATannahill]

Face-Off

[Lowfategg]

I challenge you to a FACE OFF! To bad Overdrive can't this year, and I hope its a great season for everyone. Go build those amazing robots.

[Kyle Love]

If you take everything into account, Elevation is quite a bit better. Cost, game quality and competition locations all considered.

[ATannahill]

Originally Posted by Kyle Love

If you take everything into account, Elevation is quite a bit better. Cost, game quality and competition locations all considered.

I took it as the game, not the robot you build for it, or the true competition.

[Billfred]

I'm game for either. Both seem like plenty of fun for the whole family.

[Akash Rastogi]

From the game POV, definitely Face Off

[artdutra04]

Know would be a fun challenge?

Title for title showdown! Build a Vex-legal robot to "compete" in Face Off and a FTC legal robot to "compete" in Elevation.

I have a hunch which title would take home the gold in both...

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by artdutra04

Know would be a fun challenge?

Title for title showdown! Build a Vex-legal robot to "compete" in Face Off and a FTC legal robot to "compete" in Elevation.

I have a hunch which title would take home the gold in both...

What about an undisputed championship? Even if a team were to succeed at winning both events on a local or state level, the title stands to carry a lot of weight.

[Kyle Love]

With that idea I would be curious about cost, obviously, both leagues have different views on that. Also, the kits are quite a bit different (motors etc) so Vex would be at a disadvantage there. FTC kits also cost almost triple the vex cost, so that would be a "non-needed" expense for a team focusing on Vex.

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by Kyle Love

.. both leagues have different views on that.

Are they both leagues, as in sports leagues?

Or are they programs?

I would consider FTC a program involving a robotic competition which makes it a little different than a sports league.

[ttldomination]

Eh, this post is geared more towards the game.

like, which *game* is better. .

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by ttldomination

Eh, this post is geared more towards the game.

like, which *game* is better. .

Understood.

I guess part of the problem I have is that I look at FIRST programs and competitions and the build seasons before - as working with the game challenges with 'challenges' being a key part of that thought.

Thinking in terms of just a game somewhat dilutes it for me, but I do understand the purpose of this thread.

[Joe G.]

(Disclaimer. Due to funding, and availability of local Elevation tournament, our team will only be playing Elevation, and therefore I have thought about and looked into elevation and strategies for it a LOT more, so my post may be a little biased.)

Elevation by far.

One quality of games that I really don't like is elements of scoring, particularly those central to the game, such as the pucks and cubes in the two this year, where the obvious strategy is "if you can do it in place/method X, there is no conceivable reason to score in place/method Y." This certantly applies to the 3 "levels" of scoring in face-off. If you can score in the triangle, there is no reason to score in the circle, and if you can score in either, there is no reason to score on the square. Elevation, not so much. Owning goals will, in my opinion, make or break scores. That, along with all goals holding equal point value, makes scoring in many goals advantageous. During brainstorming, only being able to score in a high goal has been considered a big negative.

Elevation also seems to offer a greater challenge, and variety of challenges. As I said in another thread, the acquisition of the unique puck shape strikes me as kind of a non-challenge with the racks. They can be simply captured in a bin, and then just dumped out in great numbers onto the goal by flipping the bin on a simple arm or joint. Nearly all of the cubes must be picked up from the ground, or from the auto loader, which is not much easier. The bonus cube offers a similar challenge to the atlas ball of hanging-a-round, where the object is really too large to be manipulated well without a creative, well thought out design, although this time with less of a ridiculously giant bonus.

I like the platforms for face-off, but think that not enough focus will be placed by teams on making their robots immune to the rough terrain areas. I think they may serve to slow down the action of the game more than as a challenge that teams focus on creative methods to overcome.

However, only time will tell. Neither game has been played yet, so we will have to wait and see which one plays out better.

[Protronie]

My vote goes for Face Off... hey it got hockey pucks... what could be better than that?

Kidding aside, I like the game setup for face off better... I think we might see some really kewl stuff happen this year.

-p