Posted by Andy Grady.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Other on team in limbo from in limbo sponsored by in limbo.

Posted on 7/23/2000 11:49 AM MST

Hi all, its good to see that this whole question thing is working, so without further adue…

Question 7/23/00:
Do you feel that the games in the past few years have been toned down, become more agressive, or whatever? What do you feel should be the direction of this competition when it comes to agressive play?

Personally, i think that it varies from year to year, but in the past few years I feel that the game has become more physical than it has in the past, and I would love to see it continue in that direction.

Posted by Justin.

Other on team Blue Lightning Alumni Association from RWU sponsored by FIRST-A-holics Anonymous.

Posted on 7/23/2000 8:02 PM MST

In Reply to: QUESTION OF THE WEEK!!! posted by Andy Grady on 7/23/2000 11:49 AM MST:

Oh What the hay I’ll chime in for once. To basically say this. I thought I had seen some intense comps. and some agressiveness in my 5 years of FIRST. But I have nothing seen anything like the agressiveness of Battle Cry. I can only imagine what Rumble will be like :wink:



Posted by colleen.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Coach on team #246, a FIRST-aholic, from John D. O’Byrant High School/Boston Latin Academy and NSTAR/Boston University/UTC/Raytheon/MassPEP.

Posted on 7/23/2000 9:20 PM MST

In Reply to: QUESTION OF THE WEEK!!! posted by Andy Grady on 7/23/2000 11:49 AM MST:

anyone that knows me… knows i looooove the physical game… i think that, more than anything, keeps people interested… it’s the direct interaction of robots with each other that makes the close-games and awe-striking matches…

i definitely think that the two years have brought more agreesiveness to the game… making one central ‘goal’ that all teams have to battle for makes for good matches… '97 had a little interaction… '98 was less… '99 i think was the best year for it… because it was a game that offered the aggressiveness but also made rooms for strictly offensive teams (to score, you didn’t HAVE to be on the puck… you could sit in the corner and raise floppies if you liked…)… it made for some awesome matches fighting for space and poles… and it catered to any type of robot you could build… this year was also aggressive, some more some less because you tripled the losers score… but i think the game didn’t allow for majorly defensive robots to do as well…

so i think FIRST has made moves to not make, but ALLOW the game to be more aggresive… but more importantly FIRST has taken strides to make the game more strategic than anything… it’s not more about who can build the fastest, strongest robot but who can use what they do have to out-wit and out-play the other teams… this factor makes for good matches and breath-taking moves… and it also allows for every team from the ones with all the $$ and/or veteren designs, to the teams with less resources and/or rookie at the game to have a viable chance at winning if they play with a bit of thought…

i think FIRST is making definite moves in the right direction, and i look forward to seeing that continue in 2001…

Posted by Jon.

Engineer on team #190, Gompei, from Mass Academy of Math and Science and Worcester Polytechnic Institute.

Posted on 7/24/2000 2:38 PM MST

In Reply to: more aggresive but more strategic as well… posted by colleen on 7/23/2000 9:20 PM MST:

Having seen the last three years’ games, i definitely have seen more Action in the Co-Opertition than in the past…
All I know is that the strategy needed in this year’s game is a huge boost in my opinion. We’ve created a mini-strategy team to deal with the extra load and help out the Coaches…

Posted by Marjory.

Student on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central and Delphi.

Posted on 7/24/2000 4:05 PM MST

In Reply to: Love that strategy posted by Jon on 7/24/2000 2:38 PM MST:

This is my first year in FIRST. I know I don’t know much about the other years but I think this year the game made you think (really heard). I know I got a head ack from the game. Trying to think of was to make the robot better, what would be in our best interest. I think if the game is as heard as this past years game has been, then it shoudl be a lot of fun. As always. Hye, did anyone think that it was a little heard to come up with a disign for the game this past year? I know I thought it was a little trickey.


Posted by Michael Martus.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Coach on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central H.S. and Delphi Automotives Systems.

Posted on 7/24/2000 8:18 PM MST

In Reply to: QUESTION OF THE WEEK!!! posted by Andy Grady on 7/23/2000 11:49 AM MST:

You can push aggressive robots and the game to far. It then becomes Robo Wars, Rock-em Sock-em Robots. We have not reached that limit yet with the past games.

I am sure that the powers at FIRST are aware of the fine line that would be a disaster to cross for the competition.

To be exciting there must be inneraction as well as scoring. Having a game without balance would be dull. In the past few years FIRST has done a good job at the balance and I hope will continue the balance at whatever problem they give us to solve.

We must showcase Technology, Power, skill as well as stragety in one simple game that is easily scored.

A very big task to say the least.

Posted by Bill Beatty.

Other on team #71, Team Hammond, from Team Hammond.

Posted on 7/31/2000 8:30 AM MST

In Reply to: Re: QUESTION OF THE WEEK!!! posted by Michael Martus on 7/24/2000 8:18 PM MST:


We are in the same camp, but I think I am in the opposite end of the tent. I think that last year’s game perhaps crossed that line a bit. Take another look at the final match in Florida. A very fine, high scoring Nypro machine was totally neutralized for almost the entire last minute.

I think that FIRST is designing the game and rules to allow more interaction believing that it will make the game more exciting and more appealing to more folks including the public. Robot competitions are similar to many sports. Unless you have a personal interest in a particular team or group, there will be little spectator interest. This years game had much interaction, and yet there very few spectators watching the final rounds.

The so called agressive/defensive machines, for the most part, are robots that failed to materialize as offensive machines. Allowing this type of interaction is the great equalizer, however, I believe that the rules have to allow a high capability team to do it’s thing and not allow a low capability team to play defense to stop them. I also feel that we are sending the wrong message to our young people by the example of switching to violent, aggressive action when you are not able to otherwise compete.

I know that I am in the minority on this, so I will get off of my soapbox.