New Game Criticism - Page 5

#61 10-01-2010, 13:04

Disclaimer: I'm only halfway through reading the rules. /Disclaimer

This game is intriguing. I love the fact that it will be easy to watch and entertaining to boot.

Here's how I see it going down: Robots that will be able to push others around the field will rule the game. The best scoring mechanism in the game won't help if your robot can't even change zones without being slammed around. I see the winning robots being low, able to go under the bridge, with a powerful kicker on the front. The robot will be simple, easy to operate, and able to right itself should it tip.

I think we'll be seeing many a Kit-Bot get stuck on the ramp. The question is whether or not the power players will bother to get them unstuck.

arr · #62 10-01-2010, 15:10

Overall seems like an exciting game this year. Will actually take strategy among the teams. My one concern is that, with two small goals for each end, it seems like you could have two defenders literally park in front of the goals. I know this would be an idiotic strategy during seedings given the seeding point distribution rules, but when it comes down to elimination, what prevents that sort of thing? Am I missing something?

EricLeifermann · #63 10-01-2010, 15:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by arr

Overall seems like an exciting game this year. Will actually take strategy among the teams. My one concern is that, with two small goals for each end, it seems like you could have two defenders literally park in front of the goals. I know this would be an idiotic strategy during seedings given the seeding point distribution rules, but when it comes down to elimination, what prevents that sort of thing? Am I missing something?

Yea there are penalties for having more than 1 robot in an opposing alliances end zone.

SteveGPage · #64 10-01-2010, 15:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by arr

Overall seems like an exciting game this year. Will actually take strategy among the teams. My one concern is that, with two small goals for each end, it seems like you could have two defenders literally park in front of the goals. I know this would be an idiotic strategy during seedings given the seeding point distribution rules, but when it comes down to elimination, what prevents that sort of thing? Am I missing something?

You are missing <G29>

Defending ROBOT Restriction - Only one opposing ALLIANCE ROBOT is allowed in the opponent’s ZONE. A ROBOT is considered in this ZONE if any part of the ROBOT is in contact with the ZONE's green carpet. Violation: PENALTY; plus a RED CARD if effort to remedy is not immediate.

thefro526 · #65 10-01-2010, 15:23

Overall I don't really like this game. It is growing on my as I put more thought into it but, I'm just not a fan.

Likes:

1) Bumps, they're pretty awesome seeing as we've had flat fields for the last 2 years.

2) Multiple Scoring Opportunities, it's nice to finally have another game where there's more than one major scoring method.

3) Soccer Balls, and their availability. Anyone, Anywhere, on the Planet can find a Size Five Soccer Ball.

Dislikes:

1) Restrictive Size Rules, I don't like how restrictive the size rules are this year. I'd really like to see a robot allowed to expand out to it's maximum size at anytime during the game.

2) Steepness of the Bumps, I really foresee at least one match where all 6 machines have tipped by the 60 second mark. (I both Like and Dislike the Bumps)

3) Restrictive Ball interaction rules, FIRST is basically telling us that we HAVE to "Kick" the ball.

4) Lack of Autonomous Bonus, I think this may discourage autonomous play.

That's my two cents for now.

Katie_UPS · #66 10-01-2010, 15:52

Guys, you can't really bash the game yet. The rules are still changing (as they always have within the first week), you haven't seen it played, and you haven't had too much time to digest it.

Andrew Schreiber · #67 10-01-2010, 17:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Katy

I'm not excited by the concept of a new ranking system. This is because many of the better teams design their robots to do well on Saturday afternoon and not during the seeding matches. If a team is confident they will be picked for elimination matches (good reputation or good design for elimination matches) they will care less about seeding standings. When different gameplay styles reward different behaviors, and only one of the gameplays styles have an outcome that "really matters," then standings within the other may become a little more randomized. This is rough on teams paired with the teams who only care about elimination matches, for similar but more subtle variants of the same situations which caused the rules to be changed to permit super-alliances.

This struck me too, I was curious what the rankings would have looked like last year should the new rankings system be applied.

Spoiler for Long List of Event Rankings:

It certainly was interesting to see teams that performed poorly (ie, no wins) in the top 8. Worries me a little. Now, disclaimers. This data is only as accurate as the FRCFMS Twitter feed. We are comparing apples and oranges, last years game played different than this game will likely play and was (I am assuming) higher scoring. The only thing this data shows is that it is a MAJOR change.

PAR_WIG1350 · #68 10-01-2010, 18:22

Likes
Easy to explain without having to show people the animation
Teams don't all use the same exact wheels
the field isn't flat
Ranking can't be relied upon as much during alliance suggestions
robots look strange (yes, this is a good thing)
requires different ways of thinking to succeed

Dislikes
scoring in auto doesn't give extra points
The struggle to maintain as small a lead as possible could be stressful
not enough expansion ( I miss robots like swampthing from 2003, 71 from 2002, any robot that didn't start with its wheels on the ground basically)

Ian Curtis · #69 10-01-2010, 19:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

This struck me too, I was curious what the rankings would have looked like last year should the new rankings system be applied.

It certainly was interesting to see teams that performed poorly (ie, no wins) in the top 8. Worries me a little. Now, disclaimers. This data is only as accurate as the FRCFMS Twitter feed. We are comparing apples and oranges, last years game played different than this game will likely play and was (I am assuming) higher scoring. The only thing this data shows is that it is a MAJOR change.

Wow! That's really neat Andrew. Interestingly, a below the radar team (175) had the highest cumulative score, while other favorites (121 & 20) didn't even make the top 8! Just basing off my memory (I can't seem to find last years scouting data) it seems that instead of the top 8 consisting of good and exceptionally lucky teams, there are more average robots in the top, with the good ones down farther in the rankings. I assume the GDC is hoping this will even out alliance goodness to make for more exciting eliminations. Regardless, it makes for a very interesting ranking system. I'm anxious to see it play out.

rsisk · #70 10-01-2010, 19:45

Not sure about the new ranking system.

Look at section 9.3.4 and 9.3.5 of the manual and consider the following match

Winning alliance scores 3 points and is penalized 2 points
Losing alliance scores 0 points

Final results will be

WINNING ALLIANCE
Seed points 1
Coopertition pts 0
Total 1

LOSING ALLIANCE
Seed points 3
Coop points 0
Total 3

So, the losing team scoring zero points gets more points than the winning alliance? That doesn't seem right. Or am I missing something?

logicalyrandom · #71 10-01-2010, 20:28

My biggest complaint this year isn't the game itself, it's the rules. With the way the size and ball interaction rules are written, many simple, elegant solutions are taken of the picture, leaving only the difficult and complex solutions. This in and of itself runs contrary to the basic idea of engineering, KISS. (Keep it Simple and Stupid). FIRST seems to have undermined their own goals a little bit here.

EricH · #72 10-01-2010, 20:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by rsisk

Not sure about the new ranking system.

Look at section 9.3.4 and 9.3.5 of the manual and consider the following match

Winning alliance scores 3 points and is penalized 2 points
Losing alliance scores 0 points

Final results will be

WINNING ALLIANCE
Seed points 1
Coopertition pts 0
Total 1

LOSING ALLIANCE
Seed points 3
Coop points 0
Total 3

So, the losing team scoring zero points gets more points than the winning alliance? That doesn't seem right. Or am I missing something?

You aren't missing anything there. But, let's change the scenario slightly. Winning scores 3, penalized 2. Loser scores 1, penalized 1.
Winner: 1 seed, 2 Coop, 3 total
Loser: 3 seed, 0 coop, 3 total.

All you have to do is make sure that there is not a shutout due to scoring capability, and you come out at least even, if not ahead.

thapto · #73 11-01-2010, 02:31

My team has had a huge discussion about the seeding scoring, and we think it works like this:

First note: Losing alliance gets NO coopertition bonus.

Alliance A (the winning alliance) gets their raw score minus any penalties plus double alliance B's raw score.

A_final = A_raw - A_penalties + 2*B_raw

Alliance B gets alliance A's raw score.

B_final = A_raw

With this method, the winning alliance always gets more points (logical), yet close games and not blowing out opponents are encouraged.

To the rest of the game:

Likes: Strategy, easier to understand, many kinds of bots, importance of different scoring types

Dislike: The seeding system! And the complicated nature of a lot of the rules (2 second time limits, same position relative to the robot, etc); they will be hard to keep track of mid-game.

Jared Russell · #74 11-01-2010, 07:39

I am more optimistic about this game than I have been about any FIRST game at this point with the possible exception of 2006. This game has flying balls, hanging robots, and non-flat surfaces - all things that add to the "wow" factor. At kickoff, the speakers put it best - football is so popular not because of the 11 men on the field, but because of the 60,000+ people who will pay good money to watch the game. For FRC to experience similar success, you need games that outsiders will find fun to watch. Mission accomplished, IMHO.

To those complaining about seeding points and overall robot restrictions: On the former point, I'd say wait and see. I don't think things will be as dismal as you may seem to think. On the latter point, we are essentially playing soccer. One of the key rules of soccer is that you can't manipulate the ball with your hands (e.g. above the bumper zone), and that there is no way to completely possess a ball. Otherwise, the game turns into rugby or football - a big scrumfest. Personally, I had enough scrumming last year.

quinxorin · #75 11-01-2010, 07:49

Personally, my oppinion on the game is a little indifferent. This is because it fits my team perfectly in that the game has various distinct tasks which can be accomplished with different subsystems that do not interact with each other (we have a very large team, so a game like that is best). I dislike how we still have restricted expansion rules and how we have to stay low to the ground when manupulating the ball.

I ABSOLUTELY HATE THE SEEDING SYSTEM THOUGH!!!!!!!!!!!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
1727's site - ready for criticism	zim2411	Website Design/Showcase	2	17-02-2008 15:26
I'd like some helpful criticism	miketwalker	Computer Graphics	14	20-11-2004 10:57
Championship Qualification - Constructive Criticism	Andy Baker	Championship Event	7	29-10-2003 16:48
Website Criticism (Part II)	Spiffyness	Website Design/Showcase	20	12-02-2003 23:32
Website Criticism	Spiffyness	Website Design/Showcase	20	03-02-2003 20:53