FRC 2011: Logomotion [Initial Impressions]

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by BBnum3

Where are you getting this from? Section 5.3.3 states that seeding will be based on Qualification Score, which has returned to its previous state of 2 points per win, 1 per tie, 0 per loss. So there's still the incentive to win your qualification matches, and therefore an incentive to play defense.

If two alliances are balanced offensively, some good, smart defense would be prudent to slow the other side down just enough to pull out a victory. Denial and delay of game piece acquisition is where I'd begin.

Keep in mind though that the ranking score for the winning alliance is based on the losing alliance's unpenalized score, and the ranking score is the first tiebreaker in determining final team seeding, so it still behooves the winning alliance to permit some scoring by the opposition.

Originally Posted by marwahaha

I enjoyed how FIRST worked out the kinks of scoring and "coopertition" this year. Take a look at pp65-67, it's pretty cool, as winning is most important. Then close, high-scoring games are preferable to low-scoring games or blowouts for tiebreaking scores. They also wanted to avoid the winning alliance helping the losing alliance to boost tiebreaking scores: As a result, a heavily weighted endgame makes the winner indeterminate until it's too late to help your opponent. I think this endgame change was one of many to prevent the 6vs0 games of last season.

FIRST is trying to unify spirit by integrating programs; I think we will be seeing more cross-overs in the future. This is the reason for the stress on "FIRST Team ----" during Kickoff. To them, it is less important to be a FRC robotics team than be a FIRST robotics team, the true organization behind it all. Yes, it is politics, but it's uniting all the different FIRST spirits (FRC, FTC, etc.) into one big giant community all excited about FIRST. Not only is the FTC kit involved, but the FLL line-tracking is present. By uniting the spirit into one group, the organization can get better recognition from the public and from the government and the media...
Which in turn may increase corporate sponsors, willing to donate to local teams or nationally, and more recruitment from younger schools, helping FIRST grow.

200 's. All hail the glorious annihilation of the 2010 scoring system and the various goofball strategies it spawned.

I, too like bringing the different levels closer together. In fact, there's an FLL team in Canton our NEOFRA FRC teams helped kick off who developed some nice line following algorithms this year. And there's an FTC team at our local vocational school who could be instrumental in assisting all the local NEOFRA teams in minibot development. I think I'll be checking in with both of them soon.

[Sean Raia]

I think we may see a pattern forming within the next few years of FRC.
08 - Overdrive (Nascar)
09 - Lunacy
10 - Breakaway (Soccer)
11 - Logomotion

Since 08, it seems that every other years has been a sports related game. <-- i know there have only been two, but its still intriguing.
Making the games play out more like real sports is obviously to make the competitions more viewer friendly and easier to understand.
I do agree that it seemed like an unwise move to design a competition that isn't easy for non-FRC spectators to follow, but after putting some thought into the other previous competitions i think its just a pattern. Perhaps competitions like Lunacy and Logomotion are designed more for the entertainment of the teams.

Regardless, i'm looking forward to this years challenge and i think that the competition will be fierce as ever.

[SteveGPage]

I completely agree. This is 100% politics and I'm not afraid to say it.

I can understand your frustration, especially if your team has been working with VEX teams rather than FTC teams. We are fortunate that we have been in a position to support both types of teams - due to some very generous grants and supporters. That being said, I - especially in light of Dean's homework - expect FIRST to continue to promote the FIRST brand, and only the FIRST brand. it isn't just politics, it is a branding and marketing decision.

Steve

[Cyberphil]

Originally Posted by BBnum3

Where are you getting this from? Section 5.3.3 states that seeding will be based on Qualification Score, which has returned to its previous state of 2 points per win, 1 per tie, 0 per loss. So there's still the incentive to win your qualification matches, and therefore an incentive to play defense.

As for my opinion of the game, I really like it. I am excited to see the different ways teams climb the tower with the minibot. I think teams that dominated in 2007 will be at an advantage, but they are also susceptible to new teams using the old tried and true ways of scoring tubes.

I think that the endgame is insanely important. If your alliance gets the first two minibots, that's 50 points, so the other alliance can only get 25. Those 25 points are going to be almost impossible to make up using tubes alone.

Overall I'm very excited for this year's game.

I understand that qualification points are first, but the ranking points are next. So yes, there is a small incentive to play defense, but if you are playing defense, you are preventing your ranking score from going up. You want as high of a ranking score as possible so if you have a tie, you are the better team and are seeded higher.

So basically, if you cannot outscore the opponent, you can try to prevent them from scoring, which means one (or more) of your robots will be used to play defense against the other team, which makes it harder for your team to score because you only have 2 (or 1) robot trying to score at all times.

Defense will be vital in the finals, but to get seeded the highest in qualifications, you should try to get your opponents score to go as high as possible if you are winning, and try to get your score as high as possible if you are losing. Basically, if you just try to score, you are helping every one of the teams in respect to ranking points.

Yes, this is just talking about ranking points, but it is another thing you have to take into account for during the competitions.

I agree that winning the match should be your first priority, and I think some teams will play defense no matter what. It will be interesting to see how the matches actually turn out....

[George Nishimura]

Just as a general impression, I do feel that there is too much emphasis on the endgame.

This is my fourth year as a member of my team, and I think out of all the competitions so far, Lunacy has been my favorite, followed by Breakaway. While I can't truly judge until the regional, so far this has been my least favorite game idea.

While from a strategy perspective, I don't think there are that many options (although, I'm sure, I will be proved wrong), from a building perspective it looks pretty exciting with the minibot and the tubes. And there's something for us programmers too.

It's still a good game, I'll wait and see if my overall opinion changes though.

[DCA Fan]

Originally Posted by IndySam

Its not a collective we, it is a my team (and many other teams) we. We don't do FTC. We don't want to do FTC. We do a much more cost effective program.

They stated many times during kickoff how being involved in FTC would be an advantage for teams. To me that infers that teams like ours who choose a different rout to inspire and bring younger students into the FRC team will be deliberately and intentionally at a disadvantage.

This isn't about a challenge in the game it's about politics pure and simple.

Trust me I'm not the only one who feels this way, although I will be one of the few who will voice my opinion.

I completely agree with you. Many of the FRC teams here in the Southern California area are FRC/VEX teams because of cost of competition and reliability of system.

As for my initial response, I had a total "tubes already?" moment at the start of kickoff. I was hoping for a different gamepiece...giant pucks perhaps? I think it will be a very interesting game this year, though I see veterans having a greater advantage here than before given the addition of the minibot. I think that the configuration of the rack in front of the player station is a huge mistake, and though it seems that the intent was to force the use of sensors and other means of navigation, it seems like there could have been more elegant means of accomplishing this - perhaps 1 rack above the player station, a medium height rack on the side of the field away from the audience, and short rack on the audience side?

[MathMaven]

Originally Posted by blayde5

...[T]he new game was just announced. What are your initial impressions of the game?...

I think the design for this game is very clever. The idea of creating FIRST's logo to recieve bonus points (and the hints provided throughout the live broadcast) is great.

However, the star of this year's game is the minibots. I remember the crowd's reaction to the minibot idea at the kickoff event at NOVI, and I think seeing somebody successfully score with a minibot for the first time will be amazing.

[johannart]

I like this game. Or should I say, I prefer it over last year's. I hated the scoring system last year and it took us forever to think things up and our solutions stunk. This year is easier as it reflects on an older robot and introduces a mini-bot which is easier than a hook. I'm sure there is going to be an increase in need to communicate with your alliance to make use of the uber-toobs.

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by johannart

I like this game. Or should I say, I prefer it over last year's. I hated the scoring system last year and it took us forever to think things up and our solutions stunk. This year is easier as it reflects on an older robot and introduces a mini-bot which is easier than a hook. I'm sure there is going to be an increase in need to communicate with your alliance to make use of the uber-toobs.

So let me get this straight you hated last years game because your robot was no good? My favorite game was 2004 and our robot fell over all the time. The GDC can't be held responsible for your lack of success.
And the lame ranking system from last year is being used for this game as well.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

And the lame ranking system from last year is being used for this game as well.

Have I misread something?

--------------

General impression:

Autonomous is critical. Double-double score for logo-toprack-UBERTUBE? Yes, please!

Endgame is critical. Potential +50 points for the winning two MINIBOTs? Yes, please!

The rest of the game is critical. Potential for lots and lots of points by capitalizing on the autonomous successes, playing hard defense, and having great robots? Yes, please?

I don't mean to sound like a fanboi, but a fanboi I am! Logomotion makes all three stages of the game absolutely critical to success... As well they should be!

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

And the lame ranking system from last year is being used for this game as well.

Ed, don't make me tell you to go read the manual. It's W-L-T, then ranking score (2X unpenalized loser's for the winner, penalized loser's for the loser, 2x alliance score for a tie).

[IndySam]

Originally Posted by EricH

Ed, don't make me tell you to go read the manual. It's W-L-T, then ranking score (2X unpenalized loser's for the winner, penalized loser's for the loser, 2x alliance score for a tie).

Don't worry he does queuing

[Grim Tuesday]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

So let me get this straight you hated last years game because your robot was no good? My favorite game was 2004 and our robot fell over all the time. The GDC can't be held responsible for your lack of success.
And the lame ranking system from last year is being used for this game as well.

The ranking system is not being used this year besides as a tiebreaker to W-L-T

[Seathan93]

Initial impressions of the game from myself and some of my fellow team members when the video started was, "eh seems a bit uninteresting." Then the minibots came out and we were all excited.

I don't like that FIRST is making it all about the FIRST brand. I get why they are, but Dean Kamen can't just say "it's not just about the robots" as an excuse as to why they're doing shameless branding. The whole point of last year was that FIRST was expanding to make it a "spectator sport" and I feel they're going backwards with this game.

Personally I liked last year's game. The scoring system for seeding points was a little funky, but it was very enjoyable to watch. Of course, our robot basically didn't work at all, but we failed in a spectacular display of hisses as our shield, the only working part, popped open.

That being said, the inability to defend once a team gets in the "safety zone" and the (seemingly obvious) strategy that people will just go from slot to scoreboard, makes the game a bit uninteresting. I think the minibot race at the end will be the most exciting bit of the game.

I hope I'm wrong, like I was with lunacy, but that's to be decided. Personally I liked Overdrive or Breakaway the best, but hopefully Logomotion will be just as enjoyable.

[apalrd]

Originally Posted by Seathan93

...people will just go from slot to scoreboard, makes the game a bit uninteresting.

Remember, that is a distance of over 50 feet each way, in oncoming traffic.