Anybody really dis-like the game?

[Moreau]

I appreciate the view that some take of the low friction floor being a good design challenge (although I believe it's just a limitation, and in any real low-gravity rover would just keep speed down), the problem with thinking of it as any other engineering challenge is that its a fabricated rule. I may not be able to change the surface of the moon through complaining, but I can complain that someone making rules to simulate the surface of the moon is not creating a fun game in addition to a legitimate challenge. Although the likelihood of the latter complaint changing anything is probably smaller than the first's...

It's sort of like NASA telling its contractors that the conditions of the moon and that they want a rover for it, but since they don't want any unfair advantages the contractors must not design their robots to use anything to overcome the limitations of a slippery surface. No paddle/fins on the wheels, no treads. In fact, they tell the designers that since they found these cool wheels in the warehouse, they must use the super slick wheels. I completely understand the intent of the challenge, but since the challenge charades as a simulation of reality it feels ever more artificial and grating. Abstract games, such as tossing enormous balls around, don't have this problem because they don't take themselves more seriously than as games.

Oh dear... I suppose it's time to move away from the psychology of it all...


...

No, wait! I've got one more!

Like others have said, the 2008 game was great for observers since the game pieces were very large, and it was very clear when points were scored (on the other hand, penalties could be very finicky and difficult for the audience to see), so the audience really had something to watch. FRC is foremost a robotics competition, so the design challenge of the game should come first, but the quality of the game as a game is also important. If Dean's goal is to increase public interest in FRC, his objective should not have been to make the game more esoteric and less interesting. There aren't going to be any surprises (unless someone can actually spot that supercell going into a trailer, and I guarantee that one hail-mary throw will decide 70% of matches if it gets in), and the winners will be determined after a game through bean counting. Robots will lurch across the field slowly, turn slowly, jackknife slightly more quickly, impact each other, fail to score on each other, and slowly escape back to the carpet to run around collecting balls quickly.

In the same way that a chess game would be utterly boring and perplexing to anyone without knowledge of the rules, this game is only going to be interesting to those who appreciate the design limitations and obstacles of the game overall. And unless everyone in the audience has read the entire manual to know that the theoretical maximum acceleration of any robot on the field is X.X ft/s due to the coefficient of friction, and that the robots cannot extend past the bumpers, they are all going to wonder why everyone decided to make such crappy robots that can barely move and score.

It's not like this is going to be a terrible game. It will be fun for participants. I just think the GDC could have given us something more fun and interesting. They put so many limitations on everything this time around that there are going to be very, very few variations. Even in 2008, where I thought there would only be 2 types of robots at first (lifters and runners), since designs weren't limited except by starting configuration we got lifters, runners, shooters, hybrid lifter/shooters, and all the variations that come with the different drive trains (tank, car, swerve and all the derivatives). This year it's (although I may be wrong, I honestly don't know what else will work) dumpers with either tank or car steering. Shooters are going to be attempted, but will probably be impractical for most teams. Sure, the mechanisms might be different, but the effect is the same.

Creating challenging field elements is more interesting than forcing the robot to contribute to the challenge. Make the field have random height variations every few feet, so that robots with a suspension system would have an advantage over robots without, but robots without any suspension would still be able to drive decently and accomplish other goals independent of driving. Trying to level the playing field among elite and fresh teams is pointless and even counterproductive; I've always viewed the desire to limit "elite" teams a policy of envy (some limitations, however, are good to keep it all fair), especially since I look to their designs to see the limit of what is possible with the game. Sure, I might be envious that my team doesn't have the machining capacity to produce a 7 pound frame that can hold elephants while incorporating a suspension system and the ultimate manipulator of utter win, but the fact that some team did have the ability to do that and pulled it off is still impressive to me, and I enjoy seeing the most sophisticated design solutions to a problem. Besides, if some team does score the next amazing design partnership with Toyota or something, that means it's their turn to "abuse" the brainpower and construction capability that it entails.

Oh, and just to be more negative, the names are silly. Not that it is bad, but if you want FRC to be taken seriously, don't call everything by silly names such as payload specialist and moon rocks. It just screams "nerds playing space commander" to the average person. If you disagree, substitute football positions with the new FRC monikers. The quarterbacks are payload specialists? The coach is the mission commander? The field is the moonscape? NASA gets away with it because they are nerds in space, so they get to pull it off and everyone keeps a straight face. Oh, and perhaps because they popularized the terminology to begin with.

Bleh... once again, I make a post too long to be bothered with. But at least it's out there now...