2012 Game?

[Walter Deitzler]

Originally Posted by EricH

Are you sure about that?

And, something I've been wanting to say for a while: This whole thread is pointless, as the GDC is already working on the 2013 game. Therefore, we should be discussing the 2014 game.

Water Game in 2014?

[roboticsgoof95]

Originally Posted by EricH

Logomotion wasn't that hard. But trying to explain Triple Play (3D tictactoe where every piece scored counts) could take up to a minute if you included the (seldom used) endgame (and trust me, that short description is missing the vision tetras, the rows, and the pieces under the goals); Lunacy's best description would be something like "you're playing basketball on an ice rink where the baskets are on the backs of your opponents, and the bench is shooting too, and at the end there are some moneyballs that have to be activated and scored"; 2004's FIRST Frenzy was a bit tough due to having three separate scoring objectives (dodgeballs, of which there were two values and four places to score, exercise balls used to double the score of the dodgeballs, and hanging your robot on the bar) and having certain things dependent on a time trigger.

A good game should be able to be explained in a short time to the point where it can be followed (preferably without the announcer--half the time, your remote audience isn't going to be seeing what he's looking at), but the awesomeness of the engineering and strategies will continually amaze competitors and unaffiliated spectators alike.

well you really dont have to go into full detail.. i mean once you get them listening have them just watch the game.

[JohnFogarty]

water game? hahaa no. don't even go there.

[roboticsgoof95]

Originally Posted by John_1102

water game? hahaa no. don't even go there.

It would be intense!!

[DSM33]

Originally Posted by EricH

A good game should be able to be explained in a short time to the point where it can be followed (preferably without the announcer--half the time, your remote audience isn't going to be seeing what he's looking at), but the awesomeness of the engineering and strategies will continually amaze competitors and unaffiliated spectators alike.

A successful game that will transform FIRST into the sport that it wants to be would be able to be followed and somewhat understood without any full detailed description at all.

2010: watch one match and you understand. soccer balling into the goal for 1 point, balls return to the center, hang at the end for 2 points.
2011: score uber tubes that are worth their own set of points but also double the tube in front of it, top row is worth most points and then bottom row is worth the least, FIRST logo (that shape thing that pops up every now and then) needs to be made to add more points to the score, smaller robots are launched up poles at the end.

see how much longer it took to explain? also the scoring needs to be able to be easily followed by the audience so that people who missed the initial explanation at the beginning of the broadcast can still pick up the game.

2010: ball scored = 1 point. hanging = 2 points. (and then 3 points for double hang off a bot but that rarely happened)
2011: 3 points for top, 2 for middle, 1 for low. FIRST logo double the entire row. uber tubes double the point value of tube on top of it (not to mention the double double of a logo with ubertubes under it) minibots are launched for between 30 and 10 points (big area of points).

Originally Posted by roboticsgoof95

How hard was it to explain the last games such as logomotion? because i sure didnt have a hard time explaining it... i mean even when they showed it on the news paul didnt have a hard time explaining it to the public...

while paul didnt have a hard time explaining the game to the audience he also had to go more in depth during the matches, saying things like "oh that's a penalty" or "that minibot launched a bit too early" this adds a whole new aspect to understanding the game. the penalties. this all complicates the public understanding the game. A huge disadvantage that we have is that our game changes every year. Football, basketball, hockey, and baseball have (somewhat) consistent rules that stay the same every year. 2010 was a relatively penalty free game with a few simple penalties (except hitting tipped bots, hitting hangers, 2 defenders). again, easy to follow.

TL;DR
FIRST needs simple, easy to follow games that can be explained quickly but can also be understood by a passerby that doesn't hear a detailed explanation. simple scoring, few penalties, etc.

[Walter Deitzler]

Originally Posted by roboticsgoof95

It would be intense!!

I might as well put it out there now.

2013-Water Game
2014-Water Game
2015-Water Game
2016-Water Game

Need I go further?

There will be predictions of a water game every year until it actually happens.

And yes, it would be VERY intense.

[MagiChau]

Originally Posted by LedLover96

I might as well put it out there now.

2013-Water Game
2014-Water Game
2015-Water Game
2016-Water Game

Need I go further?

There will be predictions of a water game every year until it actually happens.

And yes, it would be VERY intense.

Just to spite everyone they will drop hints as official hints and at kickoff for a water game and reveal its not.

[GCentola]

Originally Posted by LedLover96

I might as well put it out there now.

2013-Water Game
2014-Water Game
2015-Water Game
2016-Water Game

Need I go further?

There will be predictions of a water game every year until it actually happens.

Well, there you go ruining our fun! besides, now that you listed up to 2016 (not the Might Monkey Wrenches 2016), the water game will happen in 2017!

[Walter Deitzler]

Originally Posted by GCentola

Well, there you go ruining our fun! besides, now that you listed up to 2016 (not the Might Monkey Wrenches 2016), the water game will happen in 2017!

2017-FLYING GAME!

I though maybe I should spice it up a little.

[GCentola]

Originally Posted by LedLover96

2017-FLYING GAME!

Then we can finally add those rocket boosters! A flying game might help in accomplishing the decrease of defense!

[Walter Deitzler]

Originally Posted by GCentola

Then we can finally add those rocket boosters! A flying game might help in accomplishing the decrease of defense!

It would be like lunacy, but with even more crashes (and much more destruction )

[Bjenks548]

I really hope they don't wait so long to give us a game hint again this year. Last year was rough waiting till Christmas week for one. I think they should give us a really really vague one now.

[Robert Cawthon]

Originally Posted by EricH

The robots are just a vehicle--you could do just about any STEM mentor-based program with the same effect. The culture transformation needed is accomplished by getting more people involved with the program. If people are not attracted to the program, they will not get involved. Therefore, we do need to make the games attractive. Part of that is making it so that they are easy to understand, which involves making them simple. The simpler, the better--to a point, as you do need to keep the existing teams challenged.

Thank you, Eric. Couldn't have said it better myself. Remember, our main point is not to build robots, but to build kids. If the younger kids come to a game, they are more likely to become interested if they understand the game. More kids, more opportunities.

[roboticsgoof95]

Originally Posted by Robert Cawthon

Thank you, Eric. Couldn't have said it better myself. Remember, our main point is not to build robots, but to build kids. If the younger kids come to a game, they are more likely to become interested if they understand the game. More kids, more opportunities.

Im not saying make it completely difficult to explain, i understand what first is about but i guess it all just depends on how well you are at explaining the game. i love a challenging game, FIRST should be wanting more students to not only join, but when they arein FIRST to push for more. Am i right?

[EricH]

Originally Posted by roboticsgoof95

Im not saying make it completely difficult to explain, i understand what first is about but i guess it all just depends on how well you are at explaining the game. i love a challenging game, FIRST should be wanting more students to not only join, but when they arein FIRST to push for more. Am i right?

We want the game to be a challenge to build a robot to play (pushing for more) but simple to understand (more students joining).

Finding that balance... well, it's not exactly easy.