New Game Criticism

FIRST General Forum
#41

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.

#42

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).

#43

a definite pro to this game is that game pieces are easily obtainable at a local sporting goods store, unlike the scramble to order or find orbital balls like last year’s game. :stuck_out_tongue:

#44

I like the game but the seeding points just seem wrong. Coaches will need a spreadsheet to try and figure out what to do during a match.

#45

At first I didn’t like this, but while thinking it through a little more I like it because it doesn’t allow you to do something simple like have the robot go forward and stop for your autonomous mode. Instead it forces you to actually have your robot be autonomously controlled unlike in past years were just going forward can do you good.

#46

However, if you are the far alliance bot, you better get those balls out of your opposing alliance’s end or else they will take control of those balls during teleop.

There is also the risk of running over the center line. see <G28>.

#47

Really? How about the chance to, at the least, deny your opponent 3 easy scores just waiting in their ZONE? Getting those 3 starting balls out of there is going to be pretty important, even if you can’t score them yourself.

Criticism of Breakaway:
Not enough extremely damaging judgment calls or extremely easy accidental penalties. Also, gameplay and scoring are far too understandable, and the scoring electronics look entirely too reliable. I’ve gotten used to these little flaws and quirks so I’m at a bit of a loss without them in this game.
(That means I like the game this year.)

I’m currently ambivalent about the seeding scoring. I can see the point they’re driving at, and I think gaming the system will be rare… But the Elims are definitely a totally different game this year.

#48

From the looks of the challenge, i think the GDC hit a home run as far as a spectator game.

Of course, that can only be determined when the events start…

#49

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!

#50

I really think that this years competition will be much more fun to watch as an observer. First off, it looks like a fair amount of robots will be falling over due to the 45 degree incline that most will try to go over. Also, the ways that you can score are very simple, which will make almost any observer able to understand who is doing what and why.

#51

I’m honestly really excited about this game. I think it is one of the best designed games I have seen in a while for a number of reasons.

The first reason is how this game is discouraging teams from just dusting off old designs. Can the California drive system take those bumps? Perhaps, but I think some other drive systems might take them better. This is a better opportunity for students on experienced teams as it puts more design work into the arena…which is a great opportunity for everybody! It is also helpful to rookies as older teams do not have the advantage of having such a large portion of their robot already worked out.

Speaking of rookie friendly, way to go on a cheap field that is easy for a low-budget team to mock up! This field is small, cheap, and can collapse into storage when practice isn’t running. It is very realistic for even a very modestly funded team to push aside tables in a cafeteria and be able to mock up a whole field.

I’m not very excited about the anti-expansion rules. I would love to see some expanding field-control robots. I understand that this promotes teams to have to work on good playing strategy instead of just designing a robot that overcomes the issue, but I do like systems which promote spending a lot of time coming up with a really good, innovative design. There are lots of venues which celebrate good strategy, including traditional sports, but the celebration of good design is a fairly unique opportunity found in FIRST, and I would like to see it emphasized more.

I’m a little bit concerned about how high those bumps ride against the wall. I don’t think a robots will come flying out of the playing field often or anything, but man would it ever suck if one did.

I think this is going to be a pretty low-scoring defensive game, with those bonuses being surprisingly relevant, and penalties being frightening and potentially game-changing.

I’m not excited by the concept of a new ranking system. This is because many of the better teams design their robots to do well on Saturday afternoon and not during the seeding matches. If a team is confident they will be picked for elimination matches (good reputation or good design for elimination matches) they will care less about seeding standings. When different gameplay styles reward different behaviors, and only one of the gameplays styles have an outcome that “really matters,” then standings within the other may become a little more randomized. This is rough on teams paired with the teams who only care about elimination matches, for similar but more subtle variants of the same situations which caused the rules to be changed to permit super-alliances.

I am psyched to see soccer balls, especially over playground balls. Have fun with these: they are rather warp resistant, but once they do warp they get wonky fast. Also, a big thank-you for using such a commonly available resource. Last year teams had to drive far and wide to collect enough game pieces.

Overall, I think this is one of the best game designs I have seen in years.

#52

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.

#53

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?

#54

I really like the game, but…

There should be an autonomous bonus of 2-3 points per goal, 5 points if you hang yourself! I do think that what some teams will do in autonomous is get a ball, lock on to the target, and kick the ball across the field.

In the past, 10 point penalties could make or break a match often, but because I don’t scores being much higher than 15 points (they’ll probably be closer to 10), penalties can really hurt. Teams are going to have to be careful, maybe too careful, with following the rules.

I didn’t read the rules, but if it is true that touching a ball while going over the bump is illegal, what may happen is a robot is gonna push the ball over first and while it’s going over the bump, another robot may steal the ball. I really like how hard it is to keep the ball in your possession.

I also think drive trains will be much more important this year - YAY! Last year, sticking with basic tank drive was actually pretty good. MARS thinks crab drive will be good for quick blocking.

What I think is the best is the driver station. Our drive team is really excited this year, especially with the camera!!!

Overall - great game!

#55

What if you position yourself in the near section (your scoring zone) and place a ball directly on the allowed grid in front of you? Driving straight forward would potentially score a goal quite easily.

<G09>:

BALL Starting Positions – Prior to the MATCH, each ALLIANCE is provided with six BALLS to be placed on the FIELD. The BALLS must be placed on a STARTING GRID location prior to the MATCH start. When the FIELD is viewed from the ALLIANCE STATION, the BALLS must be placed on the right side of the CENTER LINE, with one BALL in the near ZONE, two BALLS in the MIDFIELD, and three BALLS in the far ZONE. The BALLS must not be in contact with a ROBOT at the start of the MATCH.

Bold added for emphasis. I believe the bolded text is saying that the alliance itself gets to place the balls. If you look at page 5 of the game section, there is a “get the idea” picture that shows, in the upper right corner, a blue robot with a ball right in front of it, perfectly positioned to drive straight forward and score.

As others have pointed out, this kind of is the autonomous bonus: the ability to score that goal unimpeded.

#56

A penalty is only 1 point this year.

#57

That’s an awful lot of points for committing suicide :eek:

But no really, I think this will be a good game. I would have liked it more if robots could actually collect the balls rather than just herd and if there were like 50 balls on the field at a time.

#58

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

#59

This would be bad how? (Yeah, matches where teams score 0 points stink but it has happened before, anyone else remember 2005 and the Load Zone Penalty of Doom? ) The rules are meant to be followed and any team breaking them intentionally DESERVES to be docked points.

#60

The only thing I see as a bad thing with the penalties for the year is the seemingly increased number of “unintentional” penalties. For instance, not realizing a robot is trying to right itself or another bot and glancing it on your way past will result in a penalty. Then again, I’m all for driving with an eye for the entire field and not just your own robot, so perhaps these penalties will have a positive effect.

My opinion on this is DEFINITELY influenced by the “Load Zone Penalty of Doom”! :slight_smile: