What is your favorite FRC game to date?

[Jared Russell]

I've been around for 9 years.

Favorite: Aim High
Nothing beat the "wow" factor of a bunch of poof ball-slinging tanks with automatic targeting. And it could have been even better! (the field needed something in the middle in my opinion - maybe a 2003-style king of the hill instead of ramps for each alliance?)

2nd: Rack 'N' Roll
I loved the scoring dynamic, the role of defense, and the climactic endgame.

3rd: Lunacy
Call it slow if you wish, but Lunacy was one of the most strategic yet conceptually simple games we have ever had. And I loved that any robot could beat any other with good strategy and teamwork.

4th: Triple Play
Another really conceptually simple game with such subtle strategic nuances, even if in the end it often just came down to who could do the most volume.

5th: FIRST Frenzy
So many things going on on the field! Too many? And hanging was worth way, way too much. I did love the innovation you saw, and we need to bring back steps!

6th: Stack Attack
It was a blast to play, and holds a special place because of its introduction of autonomous mode. Exciting endgame too. But once again the endgame was worth too much.

7th: Overdrive
I just did not enjoy this game that much. Racing around in a circle. Tossing/lifting balls. No hitting. Repeat.

8th: Zone Zeal
This game had a lot of potential, but unfortunately the rounds were often only exciting for about 20 seconds, after which nobody could seem to push anybody around and we sat still for another minute and a half.

9th: Diabolical Dynamics
I appreciate the change of pace, but 4 vs. 0 missed out on so much of what I love about matches. And I wasn't a fan of the qualification system at all.

[Martinez]

Triple Play with out a doubt.
1) Crazy Strategy: So many idea's and way things could change on the fly
2) Tic Tack Toe Insanity: Simple, Elegent, easy to Follow and so much fun!
3) "King of the Hill" aspect for teams to fight over which really hasn't been present since.

Second surprisingly would be Overdrive, which was not what I would have expected when I first saw the game.
Low Marks on Lunacy because it was slow, crowded field, too much scoring to keep track of it all and just really dull to watch.

[Lee]

I noticed a heavier weighting on the latest games. The old timers are outnumbered. My favorite was zone zeal. Brute force wins. Second was stack attack - the first year of autonomous. Seems like every year the game gets more complex - nothing wrong with that - but basketball has remained simple for its entire life, is simple to understand, simple to score, and keeps viewers interested. How about FIRST robots playing a basketball game - one ball, two goals, 3 on 3, blocking shots, goaltending, 3 second rule at the goal, 10 second shotclock, passing, shooting, foulshots at the end based on penalties, dunking, three point line, etc. Bet the game would be TV ready.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Lee

I noticed a heavier weighting on the latest games. The old timers are outnumbered.

I too was noticing that pattern, it could be interesting to weight each persons vote by their years in FIRST, this would mean people like Andy Baker would count for a lot more than a rookie who has very little basis for comparison. Obviously this would break down for some people who have relatives in FIRST and have seen every game but not participated in them.

[Robert Cawthon]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

I too was noticing that pattern, it could be interesting to weight each persons vote by their years in FIRST, this would mean people like Andy Baker would count for a lot more than a rookie who has very little basis for comparison. Obviously this would break down for some people who have relatives in FIRST and have seen every game but not participated in them.

It would be even more interesting (in my humble opinion) to compare the player's views to the audience view. Some games may be more interesting to the audience than the team members.

[pastorellipedro]

Even though 2007 was my first year, I think Rack 'n Roll is the only game I've seen that relies heavily on good strategy. On the newer games (2008, 2009) the alliances can play the match very easily, and good strategy (and also a real time change of strategy in the game) was not very relevant to the success of the alliance. Lunacy seemed like it would be very boring to watch at kickoff, but it wasn't that bad once competitions started. I also think that big game elements contribute a lot to the excitement of the game. I mean, the Rack just kills the Overpass or the trailers from '09.

[sgreco]

Originally Posted by pastorellipedro

Even though 2007 was my first year, I think Rack 'n Roll is the only game I've seen that relies heavily on good strategy. On the newer games (2008, 2009) the alliances can play the match very easily, and good strategy (and also a real time change of strategy in the game) was not very relevant to the success of the alliance. Lunacy seemed like it would be very boring to watch at kickoff, but it wasn't that bad once competitions started. I also think that big game elements contribute a lot to the excitement of the game. I mean, the Rack just kills the Overpass or the trailers from '09.

I agree that 08 didn't require quite as much stratgy as past years, but I would argue that strategy played a large role in the 2009 game, my team found that the matches we were best prepared for with scouting info and a good strategy were the ones we did best in. I still liked 2007's game more than 2009, but 2009 certainly required a lot of strategy. Don't get me wrong though, I still think 2007 required a lot of strategy, possibly more than 2009, but I can't agree that 2009 required little strategy.

[pastorellipedro]

Originally Posted by Sgreco27

I agree that 08 didn't require quite as much stratgy as past years, but I would argue that strategy played a large role in the 2009 game, my team found that the matches we were best prepared for with scouting info and a good strategy were the ones we did best in. I still liked 2007's game more than 2009, but 2009 certainly required a lot of strategy. Don't get me wrong though, I still think 2007 required a lot of strategy, possibly more than 2009, but I can't agree that 2009 required little strategy.

I think that what made Lunacy interesting was the new flooring, so the game itself was a little harder to play/drive. Some strategy went into that, too.

[Teammax]

There are a few very good ones it is a tough decision

[~Mike()]

I loved watching stack attack,
That first wall with all those crates coming down was awesome.

I did enjoy this year's game though with the new surface and having to chase down other robots.

[Dan Petrovic]

I think Lunacy 2v2 should be included.

It's almost a completely different game!

[Scott Bahl]

Originally Posted by Sgreco27

I agree that 08 didn't require quite as much stratgy as past years, but I would argue that strategy played a large role in the 2009 game, my team found that the matches we were best prepared for with scouting info and a good strategy were the ones we did best in. I still liked 2007's game more than 2009, but 2009 certainly required a lot of strategy. Don't get me wrong though, I still think 2007 required a lot of strategy, possibly more than 2009, but I can't agree that 2009 required little strategy.

agreed

I was on the 971 drive team, and in the time beofore the matches on Einstein, we would discuss stradegy for sometimes a half an hour before a match.

[Chris is me]

Lunacy was extremely strategic. Ball managment, empty cells, defensive pins, autonomous configuration are all just some of the vital decisions you'd have to make when playing Lunacy to determine the outcome of a match. Any alliance in the Top 8 at any event could beat any other with a good enough counterstrategy, in my opinion.

[delsaner]

I will list the ones I actually know about:

1. Aim High- great game overall. Very strategic, lots of action going on, so much fun to watch, and the robots that performed had interesting concepts. I wish I was on the team in middle school to watch an Aim High match.

2. Overdrive- Also a lot of fun to watch. The only problem is that the robot on the third alliance did not really have to do anything except run, since there are two trackballs and three robots.

3. Lunacy- Very strategic, interesting robots to watch. I personally did not like it, but I cant base what I think is good by how much I liked it.

4. Rack N' Roll- This game was interesting, seemed fun to watch, but I did not get it what-so-ever. I looked it up to try to understand it, and I understood it somewhat, but not completely.

5. Triple Play- I found this game very confusing, but it did seem interesting. It seemed difficult, placing wire triangles on pillars, which is good so it can challenge the teams to make a good robot. I was trying to understand how this game operates, and it did not work out too well.

[Chris Hibner]

Originally Posted by InfernoX14

I think Lunacy 2v2 should be included.

It's almost a completely different game!

I REALLY want to see Lunacy as 2v2. If anyone has any video, could you please uploaded it to youtube and post a link?