New Game Criticism

[Matthew2c4u]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Seeing as the game is less than 12 hours old, I'm not really going to criticize much of the game until it has digested further. And my initial reaction is rather positive to this game, seems like it has a lot of potential.

The one qualm I shall raise is with the new ranking system. While I will reserve judgment as to how it will impact the tournament and rankings, it seems to conflict with the increased emphasis on similarities to sports and viewer friendliness. We got a game that should be easy to keep score with, except the crowd will now have to bust out the calculators to figure out what that actually means for their teams rankings. The W/L/T formula is what all sports fans are familiar with, and is much more viewer friendly.

I agree. It will be hard for some viewers to understand how a team that scored 0 points got as much seeding score as the other team.

[Joe Johnson]

Lots to like (imho)

• Easily the most causal viewer friendly game we've had in years (perhaps ever).
• Can explain the game to Grandma in 10 seconds
• Favors scoring
• No descoring
• 2 places to score and only 1 robot to defend
• No messing if they tip over
• No messing with robots when trying to elevate or suspend
• should be many exciting finishes

Of course, there are things that I am less happy about (may degrade into a penalty fest if teams are stupid) but nothing I can see that is a deal breaker.

I suspect that by the end of the season it will be considered one of the best games FIRST has had in the 1st 20 years.

Joe J.

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by Joe Johnson

Lots to like (imho)

• Easily the most causal viewer friendly game we've had in years (perhaps ever).
• Can explain the game to Grandma in 10 seconds
• Favors scoring
• No descoring
• 2 places to score and only 1 robot to defend
• No messing if they tip over
• No messing with robots when trying to elevate or suspend
• should be many exciting finishes

Of course, there are things that I am less happy about (may degrade into a penalty fest if teams are stupid) but nothing I can see that is a deal breaker.

I suspect that by the end of the season it will be considered one of the best games FIRST has had in the 1st 20 years.

Joe J.

Unfortunately alot of teams like to take the stupid route instead instead of actually reading the rules and using strategy.

[Tetraman]

I usually hate FIRST games right off the bat, to this I will be honest. (go back to all my treads and see the kind of gripes I've made) And yes, I had a bunch of problems with this game once I saw it.

However, after talking about it with a few people and reading over some of the very complicated rules, I am rapidly warming up to this game. I really like it. And the thing I love the most: Scores are in increments of 1. It's about time we get simple scoring methods in these games.

And really, the things I dislike this year, are rather petty. I can claim that there won't be much innovation done as all robots effectively need to be are boxes, but I thought of a few interesting ideas once I put those thoughts aside.

Originally Posted by Joe Johnson

I suspect that by the end of the season it will be considered one of the best games FIRST has had in the 1st 20 years.

I'm going to have to agree. This game has the potential to be as exciting as Aim High.

[GGCO]

Definitely spectator friendly. It's going to be intense when robots fight for balls in the middle, and when robots try to block other bots.

And I'm looking forward to seeing robots that steal balls from other robots. Almost like Lunacy, that was crazy fun. This time, spectators will actually be able to understand it.

I don't know if there is much of an advantage to climb the tower though...

[Radical Pi]

Originally Posted by GGCO

I don't know if there is much of an advantage to climb the tower though...

If you get a bot hanging off another bot, that's 5 points. A 3rd one hanging on the 1st brings it to 8 points. Considering each penalty is only 1 point, 8 points must make a huge difference

All I was thinking of yesterday was the intensity of Aim high as well, this is going to be intense for the players, the fans in the stands and us media people on the ground and being soccer related it may draw more media and public fan attention this year as well. I can't wait! It's going to make great visuals and sound for us camera people.

mark

Originally Posted by Tetraman

I usually hate FIRST games right off the bat, to this I will be honest. (go back to all my treads and see the kind of gripes I've made) And yes, I had a bunch of problems with this game once I saw it.

However, after talking about it with a few people and reading over some of the very complicated rules, I am rapidly warming up to this game. I really like it. And the thing I love the most: Scores are in increments of 1. It's about time we get simple scoring methods in these games.

And really, the things I dislike this year, are rather petty. I can claim that there won't be much innovation done as all robots effectively need to be are boxes, but I thought of a few interesting ideas once I put those thoughts aside.



I'm going to have to agree. This game has the potential to be as exciting as Aim High.

[Cyberphil]

Hey guys,

Im posting on here because it is called game criticism, but this is more of a criticism of the amount of info on the game and materials. Please check this thread and see if you can answer the question:


http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...threadid=79754

I am very sorry that this does not have to do with the subject, but it is important. I appreciate it very much!

Thanks,
Phil

[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.

[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).

[Koko Ed]

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 teams were allowed to possess more than one ball weaker teams would employ the stall ball strategy and suck up as many balls as possible and hold them to keep them away from stronger scoring bots. Who would want to watch that?

[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.

[hg273]

I really really like the contrasts that arise between this years game and last years game.

Consider:
Playing Surface - "Regolith" v. Carpet
Wheels - Plastic v. whatever you can think of
Human Player Influence - Scoring v. No Scoring
Field Obstacles - None v. Bumps
Scoring Zones - Mobile v. Stationary
End game - Supercells v. Bar
Game Scoring - High v. Low
Penalties - Low v. High
Game Objects - All contained within the robot v. None contained with in the robot

The only things that carry over are the 2 alliances of 3 robots, and balls.

Personally, I think the seeding system needs work, but we'll see how that turns out. I'm also not such a big fan of the bumper rules, but I see how the game necessitates them.

Overall, Nice work GDC!

[George Nishimura]

As a Brit, I am loving this new game. However, I have some worries about it. Just like football (soccer), it's probably going to be defensive and low-scoring.

However, I disagree with the criticism of the autonomous period because I feel it makes it easier for the spectators and it's given extra weight as if you can score in autonomous mode, it is highly likely that that goal will have a big effect on who wins the match.

Although they are brining the bad side of football with the yellow cards for trivial and pedantic mistakes, but it might improve safety I guess.