New Game Criticism

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by EricH

Assuming no tower contact by the 2 on top, 8 points (2 for the one on the platform, 3 each for the other two), according to <G04-B> and the definition of suspended.

That sounds like the way to go then because I can't see anyone designing an arm strong enough to support three robots.
But I'm not an engineer so I am sure I will be proven wrong.

[GGCO]

Hate the seeding point rules. If my alliance plasters the other alliance, then we're punished??? So basically, my alliance will have to allow the other alliance to score points on us?

This really doesn't make much sense to me, someone please tell me I'm reading this wrong!

P.S. I understand Gracious Professionalism and that "robots are just the vehicle", but this rule does no one any favors. (at least the way I understand it).

[AcesJames]

All in all I think I like Breakaway so far. The fact that there are only 12 balls, and that recycling them back to the field takes a while makes me think that this game may rely heavily upon an alliance's effort to block the other team from scoring, rather than racking up a ton of points. If you stop the opposing alliance from scoring, you stop balls from being returned to them, and eventually they will lose control of the balls all together. An excellent strategy would be to sit in the middle zone and try to control the other alliance's balls as they return to play.

Also, the use of the bumps and the return of the pullup bar are going to be a key player in how robots are made. Although, I have a feeling that a lot of teams will choose to build robots that transcend the bumps, rather than traveling through their underpasses. A well built robot will be able to handle the bumps fairly easily, and the ability to have a taller robot will pay off if a team wants to hang from the pullup bar in the finale. This could very easily be the deciding factor in who wins a match, because the scoring will be so low.

Long story short: I like this game because it relies heavily upon strategy, rather than shear scoring potential, and I cant wait to see what kinds of designs teams come up with.

[nighterfighter]

Something I really dislike (being a programmer) is the autonomous. If the code messes up, and I cross the white line....well, it's pretty much over.

Although, I really do like the concept of robots falling over, and having a S.R.S. (Self Righting System)

[SteveGPage]

Originally Posted by GGCO

Hate the seeding point rules. If my alliance plasters the other alliance, then we're punished??? So basically, my alliance will have to allow the other alliance to score points on us?

This really doesn't make much sense to me, someone please tell me I'm reading this wrong!

No, I think you are "reading" it correct, but I don't think it is a punishment - but you will basically give the other alliance that you plastered almost as many seeding points as you got. Certainly doesn't do much to advance your team/alliance in the standings.

But here is where I think you are mis-reading it....

Actually, let me encourage you to head over to this tread for a discussion on the "game theory" that it generates.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...threadid=79708

Best regards,

Steve

[Donut]

This game really looks to me to be a return to some FIRST games of old (specifically 2003 and 2004). The likes:

• Very difficult objects to climb. Expect to see the most flipped bots since 2004, possibly ever.
• Teams will practically be "forced" to innovate new mechanisms. The 3" ball incursion rule along with single ball limits and no lifting balls rules out the majority of past manipulators.
• Limited game objects. Ball control can be key.
• Simple to understand score. No unnecessary trailing 0's or odd multipliers.
• One of the most awesome looking endgames ever. Granted teams cannot hit opponents while they attempt to hang (as could be done in '04), however there is a much greater chance for defense to prevent them from getting to their tower than in '07's endgame (in fact it may be almost impossible to cross a Bump while being hit repeatedly).

The few dislikes:

• Not sure if I approve of this seeding algorithm. W/L/T should be the most important ranking component, even if trying to promote cooperation.
• Hoping these goals don't have lots of bounce outs for no score.
• Although autonomous gives the advantage of no defense, there is not a drastic bonus for making a killer auto. Then again this may just make the game more balanced (the 2006 autonomous was too important)

Good luck everyone!

[LavastormSW]

Originally Posted by AcesJames

All in all I think I like Breakaway so far. The fact that there are only 12 balls, and that recycling them back to the field takes a while makes me think that this game may rely heavily upon an alliance's effort to block the other team from scoring, rather than racking up a ton of points. If you stop the opposing alliance from scoring, you stop balls from being returned to them, and eventually they will lose control of the balls all together. An excellent strategy would be to sit in the middle zone and try to control the other alliance's balls as they return to play.

But if the other team doesn't score, you're hurting yourself, too, according to the seeding rule.

[hyperdude]

Originally Posted by AcesJames

All in all I think I like Breakaway so far. The fact that there are only 12 balls, and that recycling them back to the field takes a while makes me think that this game may rely heavily upon an alliance's effort to block the other team from scoring, rather than racking up a ton of points. If you stop the opposing alliance from scoring, you stop balls from being returned to them, and eventually they will lose control of the balls all together. An excellent strategy would be to sit in the middle zone and try to control the other alliance's balls as they return to play.

Also, the use of the bumps and the return of the pullup bar are going to be a key player in how robots are made. Although, I have a feeling that a lot of teams will choose to build robots that transcend the bumps, rather than traveling through their underpasses. A well built robot will be able to handle the bumps fairly easily, and the ability to have a taller robot will pay off if a team wants to hang from the pullup bar in the finale. This could very easily be the deciding factor in who wins a match, because the scoring will be so low.

Long story short: I like this game because it relies heavily upon strategy, rather than shear scoring potential, and I cant wait to see what kinds of designs teams come up with.

Indeed, the whole point of this year's game being strategy versus scoring potential really nicely complements their addition of the Co-Opertition bonus. If this year's game were a killer-scoring-bot-friendly game, lots of teams (especially those with great engineering teams) would be disappointed, because they wouldn't want to build such a bot.

[Chexposito]

do not like the equation you have to use to be able to know when to put the balls back into play

[EricLeifermann]

im not a fan as of now, because i think it will be boring to watch with only 12 balls and only being able to "posses" 1 ball at a time.

I feel that the GDC is taking away things that could really take FIRST to the heights that everyone wants it to be with limiting so much that the robots can do.... What i mean by this is the last couple of years i have felt that there has been one or two rules limiting something with the robot or in the game that would have made the game more exciting to watch or given teams a chance to really have diverse robots.

I do like the fact that there will be (hopefully) diverse robots designs and strategies. I also like that, as of right now, i can't think of THE 1 strategy or design that will be (near) impossible to beat, like i have been able to the last several years.

[Ekaru]

Originally Posted by Chexposito

do not like the equation you have to use to be able to know when to put the balls back into play

You get 11 seconds for the first ball in a string, and 4 more for each successive ball in that string.

That is plenty of time. You don't need to know the equation to be able to put the balls back into play. Why?

Because you should always put them into play ASAP so you never run into that problem to begin with. Some teams will probably try to manipulate the timing, but pretty much all of them find that it's too much effort and doesn't really work since it takes so long for the ball to go down the rack (the robots will have moved by then).

Anyways, onto my likes and dislikes...

Likes:
Spectators can understand it.
Spectators can understand it.
Spectators can understand it.
Spectators can understand it.
Spectators can understand it.
It's similar to a game I know and love.
I love the field layout.
Lots of strategy.
Pretty much everything, actually, except seeding.

I like the first point a lot, as you can tell. Before, there really wasn't much point in having someone watch it because they wouldn't understand it because it was unnecessarily complex.

The strategy part is also important. Ex. Do you make a bot that goes over the bumps or through the tunnels? Going over the bumps is more flexible, but is high-risk high-reward due to the risk of flipping, unless you design your bot right (plenty of ways to make it anti-flip, but make sure your driver gets momentum before trying to drive up the ramp).

Also, do you make a bot that can hang, have an easy time getting on top of the tower, or both? Do you make your bot as a defender, offender, midfielder, or a balanced one, yet maybe not as effective as its position? Do you make your bot shorter to go under the tower, even though it'll be harder to hang at the end/let your opponent shoot over you easier? *coughwhyshorterisn'tnecessarilybettercough*

Lots of stuff I like, actually. It's designed well. Just one little thing...

Dislike:
Seeding. It's confusing. I want W/L/T, dang it. It's something that is simple, works, and easy to understand.

[Ryan Simpson]

Originally Posted by EricLeifermann

im not a fan as of now, because i think it will be boring to watch with only 12 balls and only being able to "posses" 1 ball at a time.

If I'm interpreting the manual's definition of "possess" correctly, you can still herd multiple balls at once, which would compensate somewhat for that restriction (I could be misinterpreting the rule, so please tell me if I am).

[kapolavery]

a definite pro to this game is that game pieces are easily obtainable at a local sporting goods store, unlike the scramble to order or find orbital balls like last year's game.

[IndySam]

I like the game but the seeding points just seem wrong. Coaches will need a spreadsheet to try and figure out what to do during a match.

[jamie_1930]

Originally Posted by StephLee

I miss autonomous period scoring bonuses. They made autonomous period actions so exciting for the team whose robot successfully does what it's intended to do after so many hours spent making it listen...

Other than that, though, I can't find anything I dislike right off the bat.

At first I didn't like this, but while thinking it through a little more I like it because it doesn't allow you to do something simple like have the robot go forward and stop for your autonomous mode. Instead it forces you to actually have your robot be autonomously controlled unlike in past years were just going forward can do you good.