Here’s how it works. Each week we will “vote off” a past FIRST game until we have our “Survivor”
Voted off
Round 1: 2000- Co-Opertition FIRST
Round 2: 2001- Diabolical Dynamics
Round 3: 1995- Ramp n Roll
Round 4: 2007- Rack n’ Roll
Round 5: 2003- Stack Attack
Round 6: 2005- Triple Play
If you are unsure about past games, you can read up on them on the links below:
My favorite two games are gone already. ): I have a feeling 06 will be the last one around.
As long as 2004 makes it to the end all will be right in the universe…
I’m getting server errors for all those links for 1997 on 45’s site.
The fact that 2005 and 2007 (and if things don’t change, 2002) went before 2008 makes me very upset.
People just don’t know the best FRC games, Sean.
Well, since 2008 is the most recent retired game, most likely the greatest number of people here know it, and are less likely to vote it off. It’s way easier for me to vote of a game played before I joined because I’m not as attached to it as I am a game I built a robot in and played for an entire season. However, I agree that 2005 and 2007 should not have gone as early as they did. Those are my two favorites out of the six games on this poll that I have extensive knowledge of.
I think that 2007 was the best, 2005 vs, 2008 is a toss up.
I have to disagree. Maybe because it was my first FIRST year, I think Overdrive was great! No human player, very important autonomous, reasonable, non-convoluted rules (except maybe G22), and a fun, exciting game to watch.
This year, while not on the list, is fun to watch, but the human player has way too much influence on the outcome of what is supposed to be a robotics competition.
Edit: Possibly the reason I liked overdrive was the unique nature of our 'bot. This year’s bot is probably more capable in the overall scheme of the game, but is similar to several other bots. Last year, 1771 built a bot that was not only one of the top teleop scorers in the country, but was also totally unique. Not one single team built a bot similar to it (yes, I know there were other bots with a vacuum manipulator, but none that could shoot). Anyway, that is probably why I am prejudiced.
Human player was replaced by a Robo-Coach, which in almost everyone’s eyes was a human player.
Autonomous in 2008?? No.
It was called Hybrid Period man, and that’s when the Robo-Coaches did their thing!
Are you sure you played Overdrive? :o
Ya know… just sayin’. :rolleyes:
Btw, I agree completely with Iron Will up above. 
I don’t think that FIRST Overdrive is going to win. I do believe it was a superior game (taken as a whole experience) to Triple Play and Rack 'N Roll, but I just can’t see it beating more-universally-loved games like FIRST Frenzy and Aim High.
Actually, you’re right… I can see Aim High winning. Almost everyone loves that game. Our 06 robot is my favorite… but for some reason, the game isn’t.
I (partially) disagree. 2002 was, in my opinion, boring. The gameplay was just too simplistic and repetitive. 2005 was really a coach’s game - great for winning with strategy, but not the most exciting for the audience: “robot x puts a tetra on a goal; robot y puts a tetra on the centre goal; oh, wait, here comes robot z to put a tetra on their opponents goal!; and look robot x is putting another tetra on a different goal!”
I agree about 2007 though, it was better than 2008. More complex strategies, equally interesting to watch, all while still not being difficult to understand, at least at a basic level. (and no silly penalties for rotating 5 degrees too far and crossing the line)
BaneBots transmissions. Mandatory shipping of batteries and controller boards, whether you were five minutes or five hours from your event. Lots of robots with nothing to do for three-quarters of the match–which means copious amounts of unenlightened pushing. (I’m not saying it’s bad–we were one of those teams that year for the entire match–but it’s not necessarily the most exciting thing to watch.) Tubes stuck on flagpoles. A slew of Q&As causing angst, relative to more recent years. (Naturally, I can’t find the Interesting Q&As thread from that year at the moment.)
Gimme Overdrive any day of the week.
Following up on my earlier comment and responses.
2005 was a lot of fun for a number of reasons. There wasn’t a lot of variety in robots, which hurt it (started the trend of more and more robots looking and being the same). But most robots could score, even if they weren’t good at it. And every scored tetra definitely mattered, a lot. A single well placed tetra could swing the final score of the match by as much as 43 points. It was easy to follow for the fans, and everyone in the audience could build a definite appreciation for the strategy involved. The penalties kinda sucked, but they were easy to avoid and most teams learned their lessons about them early on.
2007 had the most interesting and dynamic blend of offense and defense I think we’ve ever seen in a FIRST game. You needed strong defense in order to be a good offensive team. Unlike 2005, where you could cap over an existing tetra, you only had one shot to grab each spider leg. It made speed, strategy, and execution critical. I admit, at some of the lower levels of competition it could be boring (but that’s true for almost any game), but when played right (see Galileo and IRI for example), it was incredible. The amount of interaction and strategy required for an alliance to excel was awesome.
2008 was one of the most boring games, imo. While I personally think G22 was easy to avoid and there was no reason for that many penalties, there were tons of them. They even flipped the outcome of matches on Einstein. There wasn’t much variety in bots, and many matches were over even before they began with HUGE hybrid leads for one alliance. At the highest levels it was fast paced and somewhat interesting, but the strategy was minimal and most alliances played the game more or less the same way, and the matches that involved ball pinning were incredibly boring. By the end of the season most successful alliances simply used two hurdlers and a third bot capable of getting laps and annoying the crap out of the other team by moving their ball around.
Granted, I’m not saying 2005 or 2007 are the best games. I still think that honor belongs to 2004 (truly fun game with some of the most fun robots I’ve ever seen). But I like them a lot more than the glorified race that 2008 was (also note, I voted for 1998 this time. Any game where a placebo wins a match… ).
Ok, to all the “old timers”
who know of the older games personally:
Please post about those games so I can make a somewhat informed vote. The links don’t really say much about the older games. Perhaps, this will keep people from voting off what could have been the best game just because they never heard of it.
I’m still waiting to cast my vote.
1999, first year of alliances.
Game piece: “Floppy”. Torus of slick fabric, stuffed with foam peanuts, with velcro around the outside and in the middle of the “donut hole”. Worth points if a certain height, more points if over 8’ high.
Field object: “Puck”. Octagonal platform on casters. Move into a particular area for a bonus; be on it for a multiplier (or the other way around).
1998, cause of alliances.
1v1v1.
Game piece: large exercise ball. Worth points if on a “leg” of the field structure, amount varied depending on placement. Placing in the center column, multiplier 2^x, x depending on how many of yours are in.
That’s as old as I really go… I’ve heard about or read the rules for some of the older ones, but beyond 1998, I’m not really up to going in depth.
Here is my opinion of the old games:
(I was a spectator from 1992-1997)
1992: Maize Craze - Power supply was from a tether. The spec was at 6 volts, and then FIRST upped it to 8-9 volts at the events. 1vs1vs1vs1 was troubling, as teams could gang up on each other. The key to the game was hoarding tennis balls.
1993: Ruge Rage - a drive base competition, collecting balls. Strange, I-shaped field. Lots of areas to block an opponent. Boring robot designs. Water-filled ball was interesting.
1994: Tower Power (one of the cooler early games) - shoot a small soccer ball onto a tower (4 or 5 foot tall). Many interesting designs… shooters, extenders, lifts, arms. This was the first vertical game.
1995: Ramp N Roll - FIRST was at Disney for the first time. BIG balls - real time scoring, on a very treacherous field. Lots of robots tipping over, lots of broken robots, lots of action. Another win as a game, if you liked carnage.
1996: Hexagon Havoc - Human Players had a big impact here, in this flat-floored game where big and small balls scored points. This was a good strategy game, but not as good as the next 4.
1997: Toroid Terror - The “terror” was from many angles here… it was scary how high some of the teams lifted these toroids (tubes). Some teams went over 10 feet. This was a very vertical game. If teams did not pick and place tubes quickly (like in 2007, but w/o ramps), then they did not win. The spinning steel goal was also a terror for many teams.
1998: Ladder Logic (my first year competing) - Efficiently moving and scoring big balls was the key to the game. Defense was difficult, due to the horizontal structures everywhere. You could lock up the game if you de-scored your opponent’s rail points. We figured that out and got pretty good at being efficient in Orlando.
1999: Double Trouble - This game was the first to be played with alliances. We did not know this at the time… but it was a genius move by FIRST. These alliances injected marketing, salesmanship, and a new wrinkle of GP into the game. Scouting teams now had to not only learn how to beat the other team, but also who to pick when you go to the finals. Also, if you seeded last, but had a certain quality that a seeded team needed, you could still go to the finals. The game was good too, but could easily be locked up if you controlled the puck and put the puck on the correct side of the field. We figured that out in Michigan, and did not lose a match (except for mechanical breakdowns) the rest of the season.
2000: Co-opertition FIRST - another GREAT game by first. Many of us old-timers keep telling FIRST that they should just re-do this game with today’s robots and it would be another outstanding game. This was the first year of a “full-size” field. Again, it was 2 vs 2, like in 99. Teams needed speed, ball collecting skill, hang-from-the-bar skill, and some teams had the special ability to pluck a black ball from their opponent’s goal and score it in their goal (131, 25, 47). This was a great spectator game.
What I like about 1999 and 2000, and also 2003 and 2004 was a goal of getting to a common place for the end game. During each of these years, there were bonus points or multipliers if you got on a platform or on a bar and/or kept your opponent off. This made the games great.
In 2001, 2002, 2005, 2006, and 2007, there were end-game platforms or areas to go to, but each side had their own location and there was no battling over this space.
I hope this helps.
Andy
Thanks Erich and Andy Baker. Both were appreciated. I think that now that we can see more about the games, our votes will be better placed.