Purpose
The intent of this analysis is to objectively rate the qualities of FIRST Robotics Competition games for the purposes of strategic insight and to promote a better understanding of game design. The methodology has been designed specifically to reduce personal bias as much as possible; therefore, the results are not representative of our personal opinions. The games under consideration have been limited to 2005-2024 as these all share a common 3v3 format and retain general constants throughout the years.
The analysis will be based on only the core components of the game itself. These components are only those contained and relevant to a match and the game in pure concept. What is not under consideration is tournament structure (such as event organization, format, and ranking system) or technology used in the game or season. While these are important issues, they reduce the focus on core gameplay strategy and are less useful in applying concepts to future use. A summary is presented here, to see the raw data, check the Excel spreadsheet.
Methods
The analysis has been structured to, as much as possible, eliminate personal bias. Various aspects of the games are rated on a scale from 0-5 in multiple categories. A score of 0 is only given if an aspect is not present. Two separate classification categories are combined to form a composite final score in the 0-5 range.
Design
The design category focuses on the technical aspects of the game. It is broken down into 7 sub-categories. The design of the game should present challenges to induce useful thoughts and behaviors. Design makes up 90% of the composite score.
Strategic Depth (30%):
Strategic Depth is a measure of complexity and opportunity. A game should require decisions to be made about how to approach the tasks and should allow for multiple different strategies to be used. Additionally, it should encourage coordination and planning.
Skill Floor (15%):
The game should be approachable to all teams, regardless of skill level. Skill Floor measures the degree to which a team can contribute without requiring significant capabilities. A score of 5 will require that a robot that is only capable of mobility can contribute to general scoring activities.
Skill Ceiling (15%):
It is also important that the game provides a challenge to teams of all skill levels and encourages innovation. A high skill ceiling means that there are opportunities to go further and achieve high levels of performance and problem solving.
Point Balance (15%):
The point values should be balanced such that it is possible for diverse strategies to be feasible. More difficult tasks should be rewarded for the additional effort required. No individual task should be able to single handedly nullify the value of the others.
Uniqueness (10%):
A unique game presents new challenges and encourages problem solving and innovative thought instead of relying on old paradigms. The uniqueness score is a calculation of the uniqueness of game pieces, game type and endgame type. This score is calculated absolutely with no human interpretation. All games are calculated the same and older games are judged against those who may use the same concepts.
Defence (10%):
A presence and role for defensive strategies provides more opportunities for different strategies and roles in an alliance. A game that provides opportunities for defence to be viable will include areas of value to defend and physical barriers that restrict free movement.
Human Player Use (5%):
The game should promote safe and productive human-robot interaction. There should be roles for humans to fill, but they should not be directly scoring points instead of the robots.
Audience
While not as relevant to the gameplay and strategy itself, audience engagement is critical to the success of the program. Inducing interest in the general public through matches is an easy way to promote the program. Having low complexity, good visibility and branding that does not cause confusion are areas that benefit the audience understanding and perception of the game. Audience is 10% of the composite score.
Complexity (50%):
A game that is simple to explain and has clearly defined mechanics can be conveyed and understood by someone who has not read the manual. There should be clear cause and effect.
Visibility (40%):
There should be an unobstructed view of what is happening on the field.
Information Clarity (10%):
The branding/theming should not create confusion about physical objects or game mechanics.
Ratings and Explanations
Explanations are given for all human assessed categories. Uniqueness is calculated automatically from the above criteria.
20. Lunacy (2009) Score: 2.22
Lunacy is a very simplistic game which lacks much room for strategic depth. There is one objective and human players are expected to contribute to scoring. The skill floor is low because humans can score, but the ceiling is low because the task is limited to manoeuvring and game piece volume. Super Cells are extremely overvalued considering that, aside from requiring an additional step, they are identical to scoring other game pieces. Due to the robots towing the scoring locations, there is little value in defence. The field is entirely open and sight lines are clear, but the game pieces look similar and are difficult to distinguish. Conceptually, the mechanics are simple to understand. The theming is not useful when understanding game pieces, but can explain the field surface.
19. Rapid React (2022) Score: 2.27
Rapid React is simplistic and lacks strategic depth. Objectives are limited and the random nature of game piece reentry eliminates the need for supply strategy. Human players have little use and are permitted to score directly. Hangar points are overvalued. The skill floor is relatively high given that game pieces do not go directly to the human players while the ceiling is low with the only opportunities for higher performance being increased efficiency and climbing to higher levels. The game is conceptually simple. Visibility is good and different colours are clear, but the Hub creates a visual obstruction. The theming only creates confusion.
18. Recycle Rush (2015) Score: 2.58
Recycle Rush has a relatively high skill floor. There is some strategic depth given the different factors that can augment the score of a stack, but there are mostly singular objectives. The skill ceiling is relatively high given the necessity of orientation. Point values are balanced well. There is no opportunity for defence. Human players are permitted to contribute directly to scoring. The game is relatively complex given the multiple game pieces and complex nature of score calculation. Sight lines begin clear, but creation of stacks will create obstruction. The theming is not useful, especially in explaining the field areas.
17. Rebound Rumble (2012) Score: 2.63
Rebound Rumble combines two core concepts, but remains relatively simple. The main scoring objective does include three levels, but the task remains the same with the only difference being elevation which limits strategic depth. The skill floor is average given that the lowest primary scoring location is elevated and there is no floor level end game task. The center of the field does contain a terrain barrier. Bridge points are overvalued, especially in eliminations. The human player use is average. The skill ceiling is average as the objectives are all conceptually identical. The role of defence is present, but limited. The gameplay is not very complex and sight lines are clear. The theming is mostly unobtrusive; however, the word ‘bridge’ does not usually describe a tilting device.
16. FIRST Overdrive (2008) Score 2.65
Overdrive generally lacks strategic depth with even the direction of movement being predetermined; however, a choice can be made as to whether or not to interact with the trackballs. The point values are balanced well. The skill floor is low as regular contribution can be made purely with mobility. The ceiling is relatively low as the only additional objective comes in the form of trackball manipulation. Human players have little use and there is no purpose for defence*. The game is not very complex, but the general concept is unusual. Visibility has some obstructions, but is mostly clear. The branding is not confusing.
15. Breakaway (2010) Score: 2.68
The strategy of the game is very simple in concept given that there is only one main task despite the multiple starting locations. This design does provide a low skill floor, but the ceiling is raised only by the endgame and terrain. The point values are decent as we are not considering the ranking system, but the endgame is overvalued. The human player use is acceptable, but unremarkable and there are opportunities for defence. The game is not complex in concept and the similarity to association football should make it easy to explain. The field is open and visibility is good. The branding is not confusing, but is not informative either.
14. Logomotion (2011) Score: 2.7
Logomotion has significant strategic depth as the exact position of game pieces are important and affected by auto. The skill floor is relatively high as orientation is important, and the ceiling is low as there is only one task. Minibot races are significantly overvalued. The human player use is acceptable and there is little use for defence. The game is conceptually simple as long as the FIRST logo can be explained. Visibility is good. The branding is not inherently descriptive of the actual game.
13. Ultimate Ascent (2013) Score: 2.73
While Ultimate Ascent is solidly designed in most areas, it is weakened by its limited strategic depth and relatively high skill floor. While there are multiple tasks involved, the core tasks are all height variants of the same objective. The point values are reasonably balanced, but auto mobility is overvalued. The skill ceiling is high with a multi-tiered endgame. Human player use is acceptable and there are opportunities for defence. The game is visually simple, but the nuances of different point values may not be overtly apparent. Visibility is excellent with minimal obstruction. The branding is effective at communicating what things are.
12. Aim High (2006) Score: 2.74
Aim High has extremely low strategic depth as the exact actions are determined by certain periods of the match and scoring options are limited. Scoring can be done purely on the floor, resulting in a low skill floor. The skill ceiling is low given that there is no main task more difficult than the upper center goal. Point values are balanced well. There are ample opportunities for defence given that it is essentially mandatory. Human player use is average. The game is very simple and sight lines are completely clear. The branding is not confusing, but does not suggest that there is a ‘low’ option.
11. FIRST Steamworks (2017) Score: 2.75
Steamworks has relatively low strategic depth from its objectives being purely quantitative. The point values are poorly balanced with fuel being severely undervalued. As human players can remove game pieces from robots, the skill floor is very low. The skill ceiling is relatively low given that gear scoring has no variations although there are opportunities presented with high and low boilers. Human player use is excellent with humans directly involved, but dependent on robots to score. There are some opportunities for defence, but the field is widely open with few closed areas.
10. Infinite Recharge (2020) Score: 3.11
Infinite Recharge offers some strategic depth given its use of specific advancement protocols through the generator stages and giving potential rewards for accuracy. Point values are degraded by the undervaluing of the control panel and overvalue of hanging. The skill floor is average, with multiple different opportunities. The skill ceiling is relatively high with accuracy being rewarded along with balancing while hanging. Human player use is average and there are opportunities for defence. The various generator stages create complexity. Visibility is mostly open, but is diminished by trusses in the center of the field and it is difficult to visually identify scoring in the inner and outer ports. The theming actively creates confusion of game pieces and field element.
9. Charged Up (2023) Score: 3.2
Charged Up possesses some strategic depths through its multiple game pieces and scoring levels as well as encouraging strategic placement through links. The balance of point values is degraded by the extreme overvalue of the charge station and high nodes. The skill floor is about as low as possible given that both core scoring and endgame tasks can be executed with no more than a drivetrain. The skill ceiling is low with the only challenges being presented in height and reach. This became an issue as seen through how it was necessary for supercharging to be added. Human player use is average. The opportunities for defence are limited due to the open field and large restricted areas. The game is mostly simple, although links require explanation. Visibility is mostly clear due to the open field, but game pieces in the grid can obstruct one another, especially during supercharging. The theming is generally non-confusing, but the naming of a generally spheroid object as ‘CUBE’ is not useful.
8. Infinite Recharge (2021) Score: 3.24
Infinite Recharge offers some strategic depth given its use of specific advancement protocols through the generator stages and giving potential rewards for accuracy. Point values are degraded by the overvalue of hanging. The skill floor is average, with multiple different opportunities. The skill ceiling is relatively high with accuracy being rewarded along with balancing while hanging. Human player use is average and there are opportunities for defence. The various generator stages create complexity. Visibility is mostly open, but is diminished by trusses in the center of the field and it is difficult to visually identify scoring in the inner and outer ports. The theming actively creates confusion of game pieces and field elements.
7. Destination: Deep Space (2019) Score: 3.33
Deep Space possesses some strategic depth in having multiple tasks and game piece dependencies, but does little to incentivise this. Point values are decently balanced, considering the dependency of Cargo on Hatch Panels, but there is no direct reward for reaching higher on rockets. The field layout gives ample opportunities for defence. The skill floor is relatively low given that there are multiple low level scoring opportunities and endgame levels. The skill floor is relatively high from having multiple game pieces and increasingly difficult endgame levels. Human player use is average. The game is somewhat complex in having multiple game pieces and dependencies. Visibility is poor with Rockets being tall obstructions and Cargo Ships blocking view of opposite sides of the field. The theming is explanatory of the game mechanics.
6. Aerial Assist (2014) Score: 3.35
Aerial Assist offers considerable strategic depth through its various score modifiers that come from randomization and passing mechanics. Point values are balanced well, although auto mobility is overvalued. The skill floor is relatively low due to scoring that can be done on the ground and tasks that are simple. The skill ceiling gains some height from passing mechanics and hot goals, but does not introduce any other tasks. Human players have some use. There is use for defence, but it is limited by the open field. The game is somewhat complex due to passing mechanics but is not very problematic due to having a singular task. Visibility is mostly clear. The branding is not detrimental to understanding, but is not particularly useful either.
5. Triple Play (2005) Score: 3.45
Triple Play has significant strategic depth with the alliances directly interacting on score and encouraging strategic placement to form rows. Point values are balanced very well. The skill floor is very high with the only game pieces being directional and all field elements being elevated. There is some height in the skill ceiling from strategic depth, but there is only one core task. Human player use is average and there are opportunities for defence. The game is highly complex in scoring mechanics. Visibility is decent, but contains obstructions, especially as scoring is done. The branding is not very relevant to the game mechanics.
4. FIRST Power Up (2018) Score: 3.58
Power Up has strategic depth through its time based scoring and power up mechanics. The skill floor is somewhat high given the various tasks all being located at different heights. Auto points are overvalued. The skill ceiling is relatively high given that the game emphasizes speed and efficiency as advantageous in addition to scoring volume and has opportunities through the strategic use of power ups. Human players are used extremely well to strategically affect the gameplay. There are some opportunities for defence. The game is not very complex and scoring is very visual, although power ups add complexity. Visibility is somewhat obstructed by the scale. The theming is not confusing, but is not explicitly informative either.
3. Rack ‘n Roll (2007) Score: 3.59
Rack ‘n Roll offers significant strategic depth from the importance of relative game piece placement and the possibility of nullification. Endgame points are undervalued and rows have potential to have very extreme value. The skill floor is not low as the task requires directionality, however, there is only one task. The skill ceiling is relatively high due to the significant strategic depth but is limited by having only one task. Human player use is average and there are opportunities for defence. The pattern based scoring is highly intricate and complex, especially when combined with nullifier tubes. Visibility is clear, but the round nature of the rack obstructs the opposite side. The branding is not very informative due to the use of the term ‘spider’ which adds confusion to the rack.
2. Crescendo (2024) Score: 3.74
Crescendo possesses considerable strategic depth through multiple ways to score game pieces, amplification and diverse endgame opportunities. The skill floor is very high given the necessity of game piece orientation and relatively high position of all scoring locations. Being onstage and amp scoring in auto are undervalued. The skill ceiling is very high as there are significant opportunities for efficiency optimization through amplification, necessity of both shooting and placing actions and multiple levels of endgame optimization. Human players have impactful use in amplification and do not score directly through high notes. There are many opportunities for defence given narrow areas and few restricted zones. The game is somewhat complex due to the amplification mechanic and involved endgame. Visibility is degraded due to the stages obstruction vision and amplification lights being difficult to visually identify. The theming and terminology create confusion.
1. FIRST Stronghold (2016) Score: 3.97
Stronghold has significant strategic depth from having two types of main scoring actions and diverse defenses. The skill floor is relatively low as some defenses can be crossed with no more than a drivetrain and core scoring can be done on the ground. The skill ceiling is very high as optimizations can be made through speed and efficiency, as well as the many possible defenses and randomization therein. Point values are balanced very well. Human players have some use and there are opportunities for defence. The game has low complexity with clear concepts, although the randomized defenses could cause confusion. Visibility is mostly clear but can be obstructed by defenses. The theming is descriptive and relevant, conveying useful information about game mechanics.
This is going to be a long thread and y’all are going to get some arguments for Rebound Rumble (2012) being ranked so low. People love that game.
