Lunacy = Greatest Game Ever

[sgreco]

Originally Posted by Cory

It's not that difficult to explain the basic premise of Lunacy. The problem is it's nearly impossible for the casual spectator to follow and extremely boring.

I find it boring watching all the matches with a 4 robot cluster stuck in one corner for 1:30. I can't imagine how boring that must seem to people who have no idea what FIRST is and have never seen a robotics competition before.

I think part of what was boring was that there were technically 12 things (6 bots, 6 trailers) on the same size field that usually has 6. This made it kind of congested, and many matches happened where there was a big clump in the middle. The other thing I didn't like about Lunacy was the super cell. Basically a human player had the ability to change the victor in a match that was within 15 points on both sides. I rarely ever saw a robot score a super cell. I like human players, but I liked them best in 07, where they existed, but couldn't influence a matches outcome. The one thing that I don't really feel bad about criticizing is G14, you can't penalize people for doing well. Period.

Don't get me wrong on these comments though, I thought Lunacy was a good game. It was fun to play and especially fun to strategize in. Above I am simply pointing out the aspects of the game that I thought could have been a little better. Overall I thought Lunacy was great, but I did like the two previous years a little better.

[techtiger1]

As someone who's been around since pre 2004 in FIRST. Here are my deep profound thoughts on Lunacy. Lunacy was............................................... .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ..........................................ok. Basically, I didn't think much of the game at all.

-Drew

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

In my opinion G-14 has been way over-blown. What percentage of matches were really determined by it? How much did it really prevent FIRST from achieving its goals?

This is a really good point. Our team has activated the rule 2 or 3 times, and every time we were in a position to get a G14, we had an alliance of high scoring robots, and we weren't using the Supercell anyway. There was a minor "uh oh we did too good" psychological effect, I guess?

I can count the number of matches on one hand that I saw where 4 Empty Cells were converted. And if you were a team like 1986 (or occasionally 217) that lived and breathed the empty cell, matches were generally close enough that you would know that you don't need to throw a Supercell, as 1/3rd of your scoring is dedicated to... not scoring. At the same time, you really wouldn't need the Super Cell in matches that the opponent scored less than 35 / 40 points in unless it was obviously close enough to matter (say, only HPs scored the whole time). And once your opponent has 40 or so points, the RT scoring is decent enough that if it's showing a 25-30 point lead, you'll (probably) win without throwing an empty cell.

[Brandon Holley]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

This is a really good point. Our team has activated the rule 2 or 3 times, and every time we were in a position to get a G14, we had an alliance of high scoring robots, and we weren't using the Supercell anyway. There was a minor "uh oh we did too good" psychological effect, I guess?

I'm slightly confused by your post. While I do not really agree with G14, I understand why the rule exists. However, the post you quoted in your response is referring to how many times G14 actually had a play in a match. G14 would be affecting the match after you "activated" the rule...not during.

I don't think its many, but it is also impossible to say what might have happened if...

Just clearing that up, please correct me if I am misinterpreting what you are saying.

[BT987]

I mean Lunacy was fun, but best game ever??
my vote goes to overdrive.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Brandon Holley

I'm slightly confused by your post. While I do not really agree with G14, I understand why the rule exists. However, the post you quoted in your response is referring to how many times G14 actually had a play in a match. G14 would be affecting the match after you "activated" the rule...not during.

What I meant was if we were doing well enough at a regional to activate G14, we weren't converting empty cells. Empty cells have been our team's "backup plan".

The other point was that if you convert empty cells you usually have a better gauge of the match score

[Elgin Clock]

Q: Lunacy = Greatest Game Ever?

A: No.

[Starke]

Originally Posted by Sgreco27

The other thing I didn't like about Lunacy was the super cell. Basically a human player had the ability to change the victor in a match that was within 15 points on both sides. I rarely ever saw a robot score a super cell.

I agree that super cells scored by robots happened very few times. At Finger Lakes and Toronto, 188 seemed to do it a couple times. There was one match in Atlanta that I saw it happen too, seen here. Overall, there was just not enough time for this to happen.

[bigbeezy]

Originally Posted by Dantvman27

Entertaining to watch: every person that i know that has watched FIRST events with me in the past and not knowing anything about robotics said this year was highly entertaining (over say, overdrive, which was one of the least entertaining games to watch). There was alot of robot interaction, high scoring, and just fun thigns to watch. Games like this and AIM high, IMO attract more spectators.

i don’t know who you were talking to but everyone I've talked to says they were bored out of their minds with this year’s game. I thought overdive was boring to watch, but at least during the finals on Einstein it was intense and sort of exciting to see how fast those teams could score. This year those on Einstein were so good at dodging that it hardly mattered that they had an incredible scoring device. There was no real last second exciting finish like with the ramps of 06 & 07 or the hanging bar in 04. Yes one can argue that the supercell was exciting, but it was hard to see which human player had one, and then they didn’t always use it, and rarely made it.

I did like how they really changed up the playing field and made veterans come out of their shells. However the bumpers seemed to really limit the design potential. While I don't like bumpers at all, I do see where they have a purpose, and it acts as a design constraint just like ones found in the "real world."

My $0.02 summary of the past 5 years:

05-great strategy, heavy objects lifted over 10ft, control a must, end game line not really important
06-similar to basketball, easy to explain, fast paced high scoring, bonus ramp
07-great strategy, work together to lift each other off the ground
08-almost no strategy, easy to score, manipulate huge balls, end game had little impact, limited human player
09- no apparent strategy, new playing surface, human player is key, end game hard to see and had little impact

Those are just the games i have actually seen.

I would agree with most that the best game was 04.

IMHO Lunacy=worst game in at least 6 years

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by bigbeezy

09- no apparent strategy,

While I understand and partially agree with most of your concerns, I think Lunacy was one of the most strategy-oriented FIRST games in recent memory. You had to think 20 seconds ahead the whole time to win. I mean, it's certainly better than 2008 strategy wise, which was pretty much equivalent to Nascar in terms of strategy required.

[Brandon Holley]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

While I understand and partially agree with most of your concerns, I think Lunacy was one of the most strategy-oriented FIRST games in recent memory. You had to think 20 seconds ahead the whole time to win. I mean, it's certainly better than 2008 strategy wise, which was pretty much equivalent to Nascar in terms of strategy required.

Theres always a strategy regardless...but was their really a strategy you had to execute during the match, or was it more of a gameplan you tied to follow?

Maybe the terms gameplan and strategy can be used interchangeably, I'm not sure. However, you say you need to think 20 seconds ahead...but is that really possible? I mean you can anticipate something is going to happen based on scouting, or experience, but can you really follow the same "strategy" through the entire match?

I don't think you can. Some of the best teams had a "gameplan" they executed wonderfully. I saw 121 execute the same general gameplan, match in and match out all year...yet they dominated, rightfully so. They would simply collect balls by driving in a loop towards the middle of the field, find a target and dump...rinse and repeat. Is this a strategy that changed a lot for them? nope...and it didn't matter..they still did extremely well, regardless.

[ShaunT]

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi

Second, I see sportsmanship and professionalism as something you step onto the field with, not what you come off with. Meaning that if a team "blows you apart" or out of the water then how is that them not being professional? YOU as the losing team should know you played your hardest and that the other alliance did too. I don't see teams being maniacal about beating other teams when they know they can. Hell, at our regionals there are teams who can pummel others without really trying, but when we lose to them there is no distaste, there is no contempt, there is no lack of sportsmanship. We all play as we would in any other sport. If FIRST believes this is not the meaning of sportsmanship then perhaps they should reevaluate what professionalism means as well.

To add on to this, consider a situation where you know you are going to lose. Do you really want the other team to sandbag half the match because of an arbitrary rule, knowing that they still have a clear victory? I would feel insulted if I played someone and they didn't respect me enough to give it their best, regardless of the strength of the two alliances or the scores after.

It's almost taunting... as if FIRST is making the victors say "We know we can beat you by so much we need to slow down so we don't get penalized," without even having to say it.

And if a team tries to avoid a G14 but ends up causing a loss due to poor real-time scoring, do you think the rule got the desired effect? It could certainly happen; realtime scores could often be off by more than 20 points per alliance. Also, do not forget 188's strategy in GTR. If they managed to get the triple G14 they might have won the entire event.

Understand that it is not the effect of the rule on this game (which was important, but not completely gamebreaking), but the concept of penalizing teams for being to effective at the stated goal of the game that I have a problem with.

[JVN]

Originally Posted by bigbeezy

05-great strategy, heavy objects lifted over 10ft, control a must, end game line not really important

The line was a lie!
The real endgame in 2005 was last the second change in goal ownership, and it was one of the more exciting endgames (imho).

Who needs a silly gimmick to have a "climatic finisher". I think some of the best game designs are the ones that are naturally exciting down to the buzzer, and even build in intensity as they approach the end.

It seems like we've gotten locked in this paradigm of "if it doesn't have a ramp, then the end isn't exciting...this game sucks because it doesn't have a ramp."

-John

[Akash Rastogi]

I actually thought the 08 end game was similar to the 07 one. You were just waiting till the last second for that ball to end up on top or get knocked off at the last second or for the robot in 07 to get on the ramp.

[DiehardCybercard]

Originally Posted by Dantvman27

This might be a little over dramatic, but i am bothered by all the complaining about this years game, because i for one, being a six year veteran of FIRST, loved this game, and heres why.


The floor/wheels: Totally changed the game, i loved that, in life, ur not always going to have the same challenge facing you when ur creating machines, we need something to completely throw us for a loop. it makes us better engineers.

The overkill rule: This rule really pushed the ideals of FIRST and tried to teach teams something FIRST always tries to say we are about, professionalism and sportsmanship. In other sports, cocky teams blow out the terrible ones all the time and they never stop, thats not good sportsmanship. FIRST was trying to say, hey we are different, we encourage respecting your opponent by not destroying them. my only complaint is i would have just made it one penalty for tripling their score, and removed the doubling the score

Human Player: Robots in real life are going to interact with people, and have tons of outside sources affecting them, so the robots should not only be able to be good scorers, but be able to evade the human players. It adds another layer of dephth to the driving strategy instead of just drive around, score, repeat, you had to avoid the human player as well


Entertaining to watch: every person that i know that has watched FIRST events with me in the past and not knowing anything about robotics said this year was highly entertaining (over say, overdrive, which was one of the least entertaining games to watch). There was alot of robot interaction, high scoring, and just fun thigns to watch. Games like this and AIM high, IMO attract more spectators.

i feel the same way. i have just grown tired of seeing the same teams win every year because they have built a robot based on speed. this year really required the strategy, and i loved every minute of it.