|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
PUSH to Simplify the Game for 2002 ***Attention FIRST ***
Posted by Andy Baker at 04/19/2001 11:31 AM EST
Engineer on team #45, TechnoKats, from Kokomo High School and Delphi Automotive Systems. Now is the time that we all need to give FIRST suggestions about what was good and bad with last year's game. I had a list of about 5-6 main issues that I wanted to discuss with you guys and gals, but I'm tearing it up and making the list only of 1 issue. This issue is so big that it overrides all of the other issue, in my opinion. Make the game media-friendly and spectator-friendly. Make the game easy to understand, so it will be played on TV. I am willing to deal with any other rule that makes things hard on teams (SPI limitations, not knowing who is in your match until 2 minutes before you start, 4 team alliances, etc.). Those things are trivial compared to the fact that the game simply has to be easy to understand. There are two main ways to make the game simple to understand: 1. Dumb-down the game and make the scoring simple and easy enough that a 6 year-old can understand it... possibly more like Robotica. 2. Make the game similar to a sports game that we all know. I think that basketball would be cool... a difficult challenge, and some complex rules (3 seconds, goal tending, etc.), but PEOPLE KNOW HOW TO PLAY THIS GAME. We wouldn't have to spend 10 minutes explaining how multipliers work. We can even go Bowling... I really don't care what the game is... it's just gotta be easy to understand. If the rest of you agree with me, maybe we should call this our "PRIVE DIRECTIVE" for the 2002 season: To make the game understandable for the mass media. Like I said, now is the time to voice your opinions... we gotta come together on this. If we continue to nit-pick over the little issues, then this BIG one will once again be passed over. We all should be willing to make some major sacrifices as long as we get this issue through to FIRST. A few of you have harped on this issue before, I am not the first.... but I'm asking for us to come together on this issue and really push FIRST to do this for 2002. So, whaddy think? Are you with me? Andy B. |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: PUSH to Simplify the Game for 2002 ***Attention FIRST ***
Posted by Libby Ritchie at 04/19/2001 11:55 AM EST
Coach on team #393, Full Metal Jackets, from Morristown Jr/Sr High School and NASA/KIPT, Inc.. In Reply to: PUSH to Simplify the Game for 2002 ***Attention FIRST *** Posted by Andy Baker on 04/19/2001 11:31 AM EST: I agree with you! Trying to explain this year's game is TERRIBLE! We do a lot of public speaking and it has been a nightmare. Even when we "water it down" people still look a little confused. It needs to be simple! (And, I still would like to push for the 2 on 2 games! I enjoyed having an offense/defense...but that's a whole other issue!) We have sent FIRST our concerns already. This issue was mentioned as well. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: PUSH to Simplify the Game for 2002 ***Attention FIRST ***
Posted by jesse at 04/19/2001 12:01 PM EST
Webmaster on team #393, Full metal jackets, from MHS and nasa/kipt. In Reply to: Re: PUSH to Simplify the Game for 2002 ***Attention FIRST *** Posted by Libby Ritchie on 04/19/2001 11:55 AM EST: I agree with the robotica thing it would make fundraising so much easier. the game should involve more obstiles at set point makers so the points are easy to figure so the viewers could keep track so they can feel the are apart of the action |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hard to explain? Yes...that's why they need to SEE it...
Posted by Nate Smith at 04/19/2001 11:22 PM EST
College Student on team #66, Frostbite, from Willow Run High School and GM Powertrain. In Reply to: Re: PUSH to Simplify the Game for 2002 ***Attention FIRST *** Posted by Libby Ritchie on 04/19/2001 11:55 AM EST: I'll agree that the game was a little hard to explain(I had a drawing of the field that I used whenever I tried explaining it)...but one thing that I found was no matter how confused they were when I was explaining it to them, once they actually saw the game played, they could understand it... Nate |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Hard to explain? Yes...that's why they need to SEE it...
Posted by Jessica Boucher at 04/20/2001 7:30 AM EST
Student on team #237, Sie-H2O-Bots, from Watertown High School and Eastern Awning Systems & The Siemon Company. In Reply to: Hard to explain? Yes...that's why they need to SEE it... Posted by Nate Smith on 04/19/2001 11:22 PM EST: Thankfully since the field has been basically the same size for the past 3 years, we create a mock-up of the field out of balsa wood the weekend of Kickoff to show at our Kickoff Dinner. If anyone wants the dimensions of it, its really good to use, since we've scaled it so that pingpong balls can be used as the small balls and tennis balls can be used as the large balls. -Jessica B, #237, who realised at the Kickoff Dinner this year that we had forgotten to make a stretcher and ended up making one out of a styrofoam plate five minutes before the speech ![]() |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
The game should explain itself
Posted by Chris Hibner at 04/20/2001 9:07 AM EST
Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics. In Reply to: Hard to explain? Yes...that's why they need to SEE it... Posted by Nate Smith on 04/19/2001 11:22 PM EST: TV networks don't want a game that you have to explain for 15 minutes to understand. If you walked into the competition this year without any prior explaination, you would never understand how the scoring works until someone explained it. The problem with this year's game is that it takes literally about 10 - 15 minutes of explaination before someone understands it. First of all, the TV networks aren't going to sped 10 minutes every episode explaining the game. That means that if you miss the first episode, you have no idea what is going on and you're never going to watch again. Even if they do spend 10 minutes explaining the game, if you don't watch right from the beginning of the show, you're not going to know what's going on and you're going to change the channel. A good TV game would capture an audience as they flip through the channels. It should take less than a minute to explain and someone should be able to figure it out on their own with a few comments from the commentators. Take last year's game, for instance. You could figure out 95% of the game in one match if the announcers say, "there goes team 66 putting in a black ball for 5 points and a yellow ball for 1 as team 308 hangs from the bar for a very valuable 10 points." With that one sentence during the action, the audience knows over 95% of the game. The only real thing left out is 5 pts. for being on the ramp, but that would become clear when someone attempts it. With this years game, there are too many ways to score base points, and too many ways to multiply. Then you have to explain that the multipliers compound instead of add together. Not to mention that no one wants to do multiplication in their living room while watching TV. In the end, you've lost your audience before they've caught on. If you could guarantee that everyone would understand the game, it would work, but this really isn't going to happen. A great example is found in sports: football. No one outside of the U.S. watches football. I'm a HUGE football fan so I talk about it with all of the people I meet from outside the U.S. The reason that everyone gives for not liking football is because they don't understand it and they can't follow it because it is too complicated. The only reason the U.S. understands football is because it has been around for 100 years. The FIRST game is around for 2 months. If you want people to watch a FIRST game, they need to be able to figure it out for themselves with only a few comments from the announcers. They should be able to flip through the channels, land on the broadcast at 23 minutes past the hour during the 8th episode and know exactly what is going on before 25 minutes past the hour (in other words, you have the length of one commercial break on a different channel the catch interest). If not, the person will change the channel. That is what makes BattleBots so TV friendly - within a minute you can tell what the object is, so your interest is held. Sure some people watch TV in a different manner than described here, but a good majority of viewers channel surf. TV networks these days realize this and try to gear their shows so that they hook the channel surfers on their show. If you don't have the quick hook, with few exceptions, you're dead. -Chris |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Hard to explain? Yes...that's why they need to SEE it...
Posted by Ameya Agaskar at 04/20/2001 6:37 PM EST
Student on team #293, Bullbots, from Hopewell Valley Central High School and Janssen/Morehouse Engineering/Lucent/Worldwater/. In Reply to: Hard to explain? Yes...that's why they need to SEE it... Posted by Nate Smith on 04/19/2001 11:22 PM EST: : I'll agree that the game was a little hard to explain(I had a drawing of the field that I used whenever I tried explaining it)...but one thing that I found was no matter how confused they were when I was explaining it to them, once they actually saw the game played, they could understand it... I found that people generally understood what the robots wanted to do (i.e. small ball good, large ball better, one goal balanced even better, two goals balanced best of all, fast time good, robot not being able to get over ramp bad, robot falling over backwards with no way to right itself even worse, etc.) However, the scoring was difficult to explain because of all of the multipliers. Also, they seemed confused when they realized that all of the robots were on the same team. |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Hard to explain? Yes...that's why they need to SEE it...
Posted by soap108 at 04/20/2001 9:39 PM EST
Engineer on team #108, SigmaC@T, from Dillard & Taravella HS and Motorola. In Reply to: Hard to explain? Yes...that's why they need to SEE it... Posted by Nate Smith on 04/19/2001 11:22 PM EST: ...not too hard to explain, but, yeah, video helps a LOT! Many co-workers and managers stop by my office (which is well FIRST decorated) and ask how we did and what the bots had to do. My first step is to pull up a quicktime of a high scoring match from Chicago or Einstein since they have the cool color-bar that shows time&multiplier. Also the high scores demonstrate most features of the scoring. As the match plays I point out some of the features... When the clock stops I explain the scoring and it isn't difficult at all. Example: 10 points each for robots in endzone and for each bb on the goal, and looks like about 10 small ball in the goal for another 10 points. 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60. 60 points. Then there's multipliers... Each goal balanced on bridge is x2. Time left is in the x2.5 range. You just watched a 60 x2 x2 x2.5, or 60 x10, a 600 point match. Oh well, KA - 108 : I'll agree that the game was a little hard to explain(I had a drawing of the field that I used whenever I tried explaining it)...but one thing that I found was no matter how confused they were when I was explaining it to them, once they actually saw the game played, they could understand it... : Nate |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
PRIME DIRECTIVE
Posted by Andy Baker at 04/19/2001 12:03 PM EST
Engineer on team #45, TechnoKats, from Kokomo High School and Delphi Automotive Systems. In Reply to: PUSH to Simplify the Game for 2002 ***Attention FIRST *** Posted by Andy Baker on 04/19/2001 11:31 AM EST: : If the rest of you agree with me, maybe we should call this our "PRIVE DIRECTIVE" for the 2002 season: To make the game understandable for the mass media. If I learned how to proofread my post, maybe I can get my point across better... I meant PRIME DIRECTIVE! Andy B. |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Television?
Posted by mTd at 04/19/2001 12:22 PM EST
Engineer from Univ of X. In Reply to: PUSH to Simplify the Game for 2002 ***Attention FIRST *** Posted by Andy Baker on 04/19/2001 11:31 AM EST: :Make the game media-friendly and spectator-friendly. Make the game easy to understand, so it will be played on TV. When you say, played on TV, do you mean like a one-hour special, or an actual series. I doubt that in its current format FIRST will make it to television. It's already been passed over twice for Battlebots, and that awful show called Robotica. For the most part, Battlebots contains "polished" robots. Practically all of them are excellent. FIRST on the other hand has many great robots, but the percentage is not as high. All the best robots are in the finals though. In Battlebots they are competing for money. FIRST does not have this. While it may seem as though its not important, would "Who Wants to Be A Millionaire?" be exciting without money? There are a lot of other reason that would keep FIRST off they year, but the most important is NO ONE WANTS TO WATCH 4 teams working together. Anyone seen junkyard wars? Another great show that is driven by competition. FIRST this year was not a competition. It was exactly what Dean didnt want it to be, a Science Fair displaying robots. |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Television?
Posted by Dan at 04/19/2001 12:32 PM EST
Other on team - from Carnegie Mellon sponsored by -. In Reply to: Television? Posted by mTd on 04/19/2001 12:22 PM EST: >> Bad analogy because this is exactly why some people watch NCAA sports (especially the lower divisions.) You know the kids aren't playing for money or endorsements. And, to be honest, Comedy Central has stressed that the Battlebots are seeking "The Giant Nut" (yes, I know, "sigh" and all its honor rather than the cash prize. Dan |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Television?
Posted by Chris Hibner at 04/19/2001 1:39 PM EST
Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics. In Reply to: Television? Posted by mTd on 04/19/2001 12:22 PM EST: : For the most part, Battlebots contains "polished" robots. Practically all of them are excellent. FIRST on the other hand has many great robots, but the percentage is not as high. All the best robots are in the finals though. I don't agree that the robots in Battlebots are that great. They're mostly just drivetrains with the occaisonal spinning saw blade. And the driving is terrible! Even the least capable of the robots in FIRST this year could throw a wedge around themselves and be a decent battlebot. Besides, at nationals there were roughly 620 matches (550 qualifying and 70 finals). If you were to have a series of 1 hour shows, each show would probably contain about 10 matches along with interviews and stories. Each season of any show is 22 shows, which means 220 matches get shown. This means that 400 matches can be discarded if the action is boring or the robots aren't attractive enough or whatever. This doesn't even count the regionals, which would probably have some matches that would be broadcast. In other words, there is more than enough matches to choose from so that the robots appear "polished" and the action is interesting. The other thing that would be attractive to TV is that the stories behind the teams would be pretty good human-interest material. As far as games go, I thought last year's game had good TV potential - there were no multipliers and only a few ways to score. The game was easy to learn and follow, yet the game was still interesting for the teams. It will be a good challenge for FIRST to see what they can do for next year. I think that FIRST needs to develop the game early, and then try and market it to TV BEFORE the kickoff so that the TV crews will be at all of the events getting footage for the TV show. Having a game and expecting to get coverage after the fact usually doesn't work. The key is to market the GAME to the networks. They must feel that the game is interesting if they're going to show it. -Chris |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: PUSH to Simplify the Game for 2002 ***Attention FIRST ***
Posted by Joe Perrotto at 04/19/2001 12:36 PM EST
Engineer on team #365, Miracle Workerz, from Delaware Explorers and Dupont. In Reply to: PUSH to Simplify the Game for 2002 ***Attention FIRST *** Posted by Andy Baker on 04/19/2001 11:31 AM EST: Sorry, but I will have to disagree with you on this one. As anyone on my team knows, I am not a big fan of this year's game but the complexity of scoring resulted in a great deal of interest by our students and parents. Not a meeting went by where I didn't have someone come up to me with a new analysis or strategy that we could use to win. This year's game excited much more interest in the strategy than last year's and I am for anything that gets our students motivated. I couldn't care less whether it is TV friendly, the news shows are only going to show 30 seconds anyway. And as anyone who has seen Robotica knows, that is one of the most boring shows on TV, it gives robot competitions a bad name. Give me Junkyard Wars anytime. If you want to change something, bring back the head-to-head competition. Just my opinion, Joe |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re. General Suggitions for Next Year
Posted by Kyle Fenton at 04/19/2001 2:03 PM EST
Student on team #121, Islanders, from Middletown High School and NUWC. In Reply to: PUSH to Simplify the Game for 2002 ***Attention FIRST *** Posted by Andy Baker on 04/19/2001 11:31 AM EST: The game next year should be all customizable. This is my suggestions for a next year's game 1. Make it either 2v2 or all 4 working together. If it is 2v2 than your main objective would be to will be to rack up the balls and head to the center to a fight for the big points for the main objecting in the center. If I is all 4 working together, you would have a chance at higher score but have a harder time getting a score. It should be integrated so that if one robot doesn't perform its task than it will hung the other robots, causing the whole alliance to loose major points. This will cause the game to be more exciting and will satisfy everybody (meaning if they want 2v2 or all 4). 2. The game field next year will probably be the same as this years and last years. Rectangular shape with diamond plate stations. With also the main objective in the middle with balls or floppies at the human station and at the other side of the field. 3. The game next year should be on multiple terrain. Adds the excitement for the game instead of just all carpet. Instead of just carpet FIRST can add maybe metal surfaces, grit tape surfaces, dirt, and maybe some water. 4. Hire DJ's that actually plays a variety of music. This year it must have been just like 4 songs repeated over and over again. 5. Have more team pictures stations. Remember when you take your picture for your team where it says FIRST in the background. Add about 1 or two more. I remember waiting there for about an hour in the hot sun. 6. Have a little something extra, like a lining or something, so the floors, in very heavy rain don't flood the pit area or the competition. This year that was really annoying and dangerous (with the electronics and all). 7. If you have a media pass for the indoor field in the nationals, make it so that you have like you got a clear view for the field. This year the indoor "media station" was just another place where you could sit down. I mean we could have use those "special chairs" that no one else was using. Only Einstein really had a good place to take video shots. Another thing, only be up in the media booth if your team is out there, or ready to compete. This eliminates the crowding factor by only having about 5 people (4 teams + the guy who is taping it for FIRST). 8. Make Epcot gives us more of the parking lot so we can add two more divisions than last year's. The side of the parking lot that said they had for their "real customers" were no more than 10 cars scattered. Believe me they can give us more room. 9. Have a separate screen maybe on the tents outside or something for the 1.) Chairman's Award 2.) Animation This will give teams more and better access to see the other team's hard work. If it is a Chairman's Award Paper submission than FIRST can scan it in and on a big screen might be readable. 9. Split up the judges to a specific division. This will give a more equal and better responses for awards. 11. Practice should be a little more exciting. Because you are waiting and do nothing that whole day. Maybe that’s when speakers will come in and demonstrate something for us or something. There is many things I hated about this year but I will explain that another time. P.S. I hope that more teams next year will give out awards. Nothing big, but just something to give to other teams that recognizes their effort in helping you out. It is almost like a team award can almost be as satisfy as a FIRST award because someone looked at your team and recognized your effort. |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
Kevin for DJ! :^)
Posted by Kevin Sevcik at 04/19/2001 5:23 PM EST
College Student on team #57, Leopards, from BT Washington and the High School for Engineering Professions and Exxon, Kellog Brown & Root, Powell Electrical. In Reply to: Re. General Suggitions for Next Year Posted by Kyle Fenton on 04/19/2001 2:03 PM EST: My mom tried to dragoon me into DJing the Lonestar regional. I beging off by saying I'm not a professional and don't hav equipment and stuff. I've been forced into doing the music for some smaller competitons, though, so I now have a fairly large selection of music. :^) Alright, so it's all in MP3s, so? it works... Anyways, on to some other points... 1. I swear that 2v2 or all together thing sounds MORE complicated. Of course, I don't mind complication. Personally, I don't think the scoring this year was all that complicated. It was just hard to do. I think complicated scoring systems are good because they encourage more thinking and creativity. I'd hate t show up at nationals and find out that everyone's robot is the same as mine. That'd be boring. 3. Varied surfaces would be difficult, I think. Dirt would be too hard to get consistent. Sand would be too hard on the motors and other moving parts. And as for water.. Enough teams have trouble just WIRING there robot, much less waterproofing it. I think there's one viable option. Little plastic pellets. One of our engineers says that's how they ship bulk plastic, and it's supposed to be cheap. The only problem with this is making sure all the teams can get enough to practice with... 6. You realize that the only options to keep water out of the pits are to raise the whole floor an inch or so, or move the pits to the high ground? barring that, you'd have to seal the entire bottom edge of the tent to the pavement and figre out how to keep water from coming in through the doors. Or you'd have to erect a barrier around the inside edge of the tent that's sealed to the pavement. Frankly, I think It'd be easier and more productive to quit fighting the forces of nature and hope we don't have another huge rain storm. |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| 2002 game prediction contest!!! | Ken Leung | Rumor Mill | 41 | 31-12-2007 18:18 |
| What changes to this year's game...? | DougHogg | General Forum | 16 | 20-04-2003 15:35 |
| "Rigging" the game vs playing the game strategically - what's the difference? | ColleenShaver | Rules/Strategy | 13 | 15-01-2003 10:33 |
| Ok, so YOU design the 2003 game... | dlavery | General Forum | 157 | 07-01-2003 23:55 |