Why does everyone hate this game so much?

[billylo]

Just returned from Waterloo. I have been reflecting on what the most important thing, the one thing I would put on the feedback form.

Here it is:

It's practically impossible to predict how a game will be played by 50000 smart people, young and the-young at heart. Even if you recruit Neil deGrasse Tyson (as an example) and put him onto the GDC.

So, what can be done to continue growing STEM better through FIRST?

Engage the 50,000 smart people in participating the evolution of a game in structured way. Leverage the competition experience of teams like 254, 469, 33, etc; the less experienced teams; and the rookies and pre-rookies too.

Turn the problem on its head.

Don't fix this game (yes, you heard that from me here... :-) )

Invest our time in enhancing the process of conceiving, designing, testing and deploying the game. Transparency will lead to understanding, engagement will lead to acceptance; and openness will lead to willingness to forget about the imperfect aspects of the system.

[efoote868]

I wouldn't say that I "hate" this game, but there are two things in my mind that are go against it and make me grind my teeth when watching.

First is one game piece per alliance. I can't tell you how many times I've watched a team pick up a ball, only to have it die on the field and effectively lose the game right then and there. Took them what seems like ten seconds to pick up the ball, another ten to figure out their shooter isn't working, and another ten to realize it's stuck and get another ball in play.

Second is qualifications. In years past 2:3 or 1:3 matches could be won by the powerhouse teams, but this year when your alliance partner's bumpers fall off and they get disabled after autonomous, you effectively lose the match right there. I would love to see some sort of strength of schedule correlated to seeding, and that correlation compared to OPR vs seeding. My guess is this year has more to do with luck of the draw than any other year in recent memory.

[cglrcng]

Originally Posted by billylo

Just returned from Waterloo. I have been reflecting on what the most important thing, the one thing I would put on the feedback form.

Here it is:

It's practically impossible to predict how a game will be played by 50000 smart people, young and the-young at heart. Even if you recruit Neil deGrasse Tyson (as an example) and put him onto the GDC.

So, what can be done to continue growing STEM better through FIRST?

Engage the 50,000 smart people in participating the evolution of a game in structured way. Leverage the competition experience of teams like 254, 469, 33, etc; the less experienced teams; and the rookies and pre-rookies too.

Turn the problem on its head.




Don't fix this game (yes, you heard that from me here... :-) )

Invest our time in enhancing the process of conceiving, designing, testing and deploying the game. Transparency will lead to understanding, engagement will lead to acceptance; and openness will lead to willingness to forget about the imperfect aspects of the system.

This above.....

It wasn't that I didn't like the game (though I anticipated it would become very damaging Battle Bots like, and it did for a period of time, forcing some changes)...It was that I knew I wouldn't like the resulting "fixing that was going to be applied" either to the field elements, or all the rest that would be necessary.

I agreed w/ the above poster weeks ago...Though the GDC took the only route available once many stated how much they didn't like the game, and attempted to, in their way make the game better....It has improved it, and I am now a convert. It is better. Though, if you rely on your scouting or the Stats from week 1, 2, 3, or 4 at the Championships (or compare those stats on a season wide basis)...You just may be sorry you did. As too many changes have taken place in just less than 3 months, and the last 4 weeks. Will there be more to come? Who knows.....But, my personal complaints about the game are over.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by billylo

So, what can be done to continue growing STEM better through FIRST?

Engage the 50,000 smart people in participating the evolution of a game in structured way. Leverage the competition experience of teams like 254, 469, 33, etc; the less experienced teams; and the rookies and pre-rookies too.

Turn the problem on its head.

Don't fix this game (yes, you heard that from me here... :-) )

Invest our time in enhancing the process of conceiving, designing, testing and deploying the game. Transparency will lead to understanding, engagement will lead to acceptance; and openness will lead to willingness to forget about the imperfect aspects of the system.

I agree with this sentiment. Other than the disproportionate foul points, I think this game gets an important aspect that can enhance the FIRST experience across all teams. It requires cooperation across the entire alliance to succeed. Unfortunately the competition has been dominated by power teams, even to the extent that there's a thread about the "ethics of saying 'no'". This game gets all of the teams back into the action. I think that the game could be better designed, and even Ultimate Ascent could have given even more incentives to alliance play (e.g., more points for FCS and rebound collected shots, and more allowance for blocking FCS to require counterdefense.) But that shouldn't take away from the aim of the GDC.

That said, the lack of design and build experience by the newer teams is highlighted in this game. A disabled or unavailable robot creates a 20 point per cycle penalty. That's unfair to the other two alliance members who have absolutely NO control over that aspect--it's even worse than a 50 point technical. FIRST made that worse this year by pursuing a strong team recruitment effort, particularly in California and Michigan (which I applaud hugely!) The result is even MORE inexperienced teams. From my analysis of the OPRs, it appears that the spread between teams has increased this year compared to 2013 and 2013 (which had very similar year to year spreads).

The answer is requires a thred-fold strategy (which we plan to implement the our part locally here in the Sacramento Valley).

1) FIRST needs to announce in September, long before Kickoff, that it is planning a game that requires robot interaction with bonus points. This gives all teams a signal that they must rely on their alliance members much more than in the past. The GDC need not reveal anything more so teams are not going to get a jump on design.

2) FIRST needs to provide a list of newest teams (including prospects) to other teams in the region so that the older teams know who they need to contact for step 3). FIRST should try to finalize this list by the end of November.

3) The more experienced teams should start in September to visit the newest teams, both this year's and last year's rookies to start, to explain how they design for different game strategies, including focusing on specific, manageable tasks at the outset, and to train these teams in building robust, reliable robots. And guess what? This program both enhances the FIRST experience AND achieves some of the most important educational objectives of FIRST. It also builds community by bringing together the best teams (which aren't always viewed in the best light) with the newest teams.

FIRST could take this a step further by assigning the top teams a number of new teams to mentor, e.g., 3-5, and start the assignments based on world ranked order. Participating could become a requirement for FIRST membership. Many top teams do this, but it would formalize the process and ease finding the newest teams. FIRST could even create the ability to have "superalliances" that some how play into regional rankings and world championships qualifications.