Well guys we have all had some time to mull this one over and so now I am curious to know, what do you all think of the game design?
I think this is clearly one of the most unique game designs that FIRST has had. So many years scoring is either “put [shape x] on [shape y]” or “put [shape x] in [goal y]” This game can be commended on its uniqueness.
I am quite surprised that they have returned “real time scoring” to the game instead of having the majority of the score be done by the “end of game state.” How do you think the spectators will respond to this? People talk about the issues that arose from Toroid Terror. Are we facing repeats here?
I am slightly concerned that the spectator may also lose some of the entertainment value in the way the game is set up. The balls are a significant engineering challenge in their weight and size but I am not sure how well this will compute to a more general audience. The ratio of scoring objects to robots means that this will not turn into robots simply doing laps but it is concerning that in some matches this may equate to two teams not contributing much to the game.
I am concerned about seeing a lot of robots on their sides. Adding 10 pounds to the robot 20 inches from wherever the possession mechanism starts is no small deal. That’s just for possession too mind you, not even talking about putting it over the bars or on the bars. I understand that many people think tetras are a reasonable beginning estimate of the weight but the big deal in CG is that the effective center of the ball is much higher because it is a bigger object. It is also heavier than a tetra. Also remember that when tetras are laying on their sides they have a much lower CG than a spherical ball of the same weight. This is because a lot of the weight on the tetra comes from the pieces that are physically resting against the ground.
This game has effectively destroyed conventional perceptions of “playing defense.” I’m sure somebody is going to figure out how to do it but our conventional methods are unlikely to be any good. This is a bold step. I think it is a step in the right direction because this is a change only veteran teams will feel. Rookie teams don’t know “how things have always been done” so they aren’t going to have issues thinking of “a new way.” Everything they think of is effectively “a new way” for them. Veteran teams will have to think outside the box. This keeps the game challenging for them.
It is nice to see the little ways in which FIRST is changing things up with this game. I’m happy to see the human player has been switched out for the robocoach. This isn’t really because I dislike the human player so much as because it is great to see a new setup. It is also extreamely realistic and relevant to applied work in the field of robotics.
I’m also thrilled to see that the field is a new shape. I know that people always say they want big field changes but as FIRST likes to use specific venues for competitions more dramatic changes probably aren’t reasonable. This change of the angled corners is subtle but in my personal opinion very significant. The idea of “corners” is gone and the idea of finding an out of the way place to be is gone. Theoretically a robot from any position can be asked to move if another robot gets into the position where the first position is “blocking traffic.”
There is one thing that is absolutely crystal clear however. FIRST should be commended for doing an excellent job in designing a field that low-budget teams can easily emulate even with severe space and budgetary constraints.
I think:
It was a pleasure to read your well thought out post and I’m going to read it again out of appreciation. You found the balance in expressing your concerns along with your positive thoughts.
I personally am not wild about the game, I still like it though. I was hoping for something, well, different from what we got. This year seems to strike me as roboNASCAR.
I guess I was just hoping that the FRC my senior year would be more like older games.
I think this is one of the most objective, mature, and thought-out posts so far regarding this game. Initially, I bet we all had the same thought progression:
upon seeing the game in kickoff - “this is way too simple, why on earth did they do that”
upon playing with the Trackball and inspecting the rules closer - “this is a horrible game, why on earth would they do this and this and this, way too complicated and complex”
Now, taking a step back and approaching the challenge of the game head-on, I think more of us are heading into the lines of thought you brought up. Although I disagree with you on one point - I personally think the audience will get a huge kick out of seeing 3.5’ balls hurling through the air (in the event that teams take that route)
Originally Posted by ChrisMcK2186
I guess I was just hoping that the FRC my senior year would be more like older games.
You can not wish for things to remain the same just for the sake of remaining the same. That is not how you innovate. That is not how you make an idea that will change the world. Insisting on keeping things just as they are only barely maintains a declining status quo because if you do not take advantage of a new opportunity somebody else will.
Originally Posted by GeeForce
Although I disagree with you on one point - I personally think the audience will get a huge kick out of seeing 3.5’ balls hurling through the air (in the event that teams take that route)
If somebody does start throwing balls you are completely right. That’s going to be really interesting…and by interesting I mean terrifying. As my job puts me pretty near the field I may maintain the right to run for cover. On some level I consider it a slight oversight of FIRST to not have made the outside walls higher relative to that scoring zone. Even if all the people run that ball can do a serious job on, for example, the desk of electronic goodness where all of the sound system comes from and the game announcer sits.
There are a couple more things I would’ve like. Corner banking or a variety of hurdle. I’m thinking like the barrier in the 2001 game that teams could use to drive under, climb over or have the teeter totter ramp to go up and down with on the turns.
I wasn’t saying change shouldn’t happen, far from it. I was instead implying that I would have liked an objective based game instead of a race.
The effectiveness of communication is based on how well the communicator can convey his point. In this regard, I can’t communicate:D
The more I think about the game and plan it, it does seem to fit more in my team’s niche; very little manipulation required to have a robot capable of scoring high.
Katy - nice perspective on this year’s challenge. I don’t know how early FIRST has the game locked down, But I think the straightforward elements of OVERDRIVE offers the 318 rookie teams a chance to perform. - KK
While I may agree with many of your insights, and disagree with others, the thing that I appreciate the most is the mature, thoughtful, well reasoned presentation of your opinions. By providing supporting information to back up your opinions, you have helped us see the careful consideration and thought that you put into each one. This type of carefully crafted discourse helps raise the level and quality of the entire discussion, no matter which side of the debate you may be on. Well done.
What do I think? I think Katy is just about 100% spot on. Katy seems to have a nack for predicting how the game will play out over the season and I think she may have done it again this year. Katy, thank you for your well thought out post. It is refreshing with all the “why I don’t like this game” posts going around. I would surely give you positive rep but it says I must “spread some around first”.
For the record I like the game and commend the GDC for the bold steps taken this year to reduce the gap between the rookies and the vets and toward the excessive defensive play we had started to see in the last couple of years. I pretty much like the GAME 100%. So far (as far as the ROBOT rules go) the only thing I am not really excited about is the mandatory bumper rule and for some reason I think the 75" flag rule is going to be a bit of an issue. Of course, I am still absorbing all the rules so my opinion may change but right now I like 95% of it. On the plus side the revised “tape” rule is great. I just wish it was worded that way LAST YEAR!
All I can say is, every year we are in stunned silence after the game description ends. We wait impatiently as Dave, Woody, and Dean play a mock game show- only to finally get the unlock code to see what it is all about. Yes the initial game seemed Simple, 40inch balls dont sound all that hard, till you pick them up!!! Knocking it off the tack- no problem (what a height restiction?)- (hair falls to the floor) [ok they deleted that one- thank goodness] Then our wheels start turning as we read through all the Game and Robot Rules and solidify the size and scale of the field apperatus, and then it hits us… there are true problems to solve, there are enginering feats to accomplish and in 10 minutes the pizza is arriving!
I think this is the other side of complexity and if we simply build a miniture nascar racebot, we may miss some pretty improtant mind streching lessons.
I really like how the game makes teams change their design strategy. It seems that in previous years, the approach to chassis design has been to make the beefiest, strongest pushing machine. However, Overdrive requires a very different approach. This not only forces teams to broaden their horizons and consider other aspects of chassis design; it also seems like it will level the playing field a bit. Instead of veteran teams improving upon tried and trued designs while rookies are learning the basics, the older teams have to take a few steps back and learn same new things as well.
Overdrive also seems more spectator-friendly. Most everyone understands the concept of a race, so it’s easier to understand what is going on if you haven’t read the rules. There also seems to be something appealing about the concept of robots throwing giant balls while traveling at high speeds…
Originally Posted by Koko Ed
There are a couple more things I would’ve like. Corner banking or a variety of hurdle. I’m thinking like the barrier in the 2001 game that teams could use to drive under, climb over or have the teeter totter ramp to go up and down with on the turns.
I agree with you that a few obstacles in the way might do some good, if for no other reason than to make the robots drive slower. I’m imagining a few of the robots that really gun it will hit the glass hard. Severe impacts can mess up the electronics on the game field.
If I was mentoring a team this year I’d have them put thick rubbery sticky feet on the bottom of the driver control board to prevent parts from being knocked loose or the whole board coming down off the tray. I mean you probably won’t need it but if it is easy to prevent and costs neither weight nor build time (as you can make your controller holding board after ship) why not prevent it?
But that’s neither here nor there. Stuff on the field is something I would personally favor but I can see why they didn’t do it.
CG is going to be an awfully big problem in the game already with a completely flat field. If you tilt the field you’re more likely to tilt the robots. With a flat field you can have the drive train really hug the ground and lower the CG somewhat. Normally when there are obstacles on the field the very base of the drive train needs to come up off the ground a little or your drive train is likely to bottom out on the slopes. If they banked the sides robots would probably be more likely to bottom out and, unless they were going fast, tip in. This is aside from the confines of space and money for low budget teams.
That said? We have a CG problem this way too. I think a lot of teams are going to try to turn too fast (I mean there isn’t much space) and tip. Once again this is a significant technical challenge but I’m not sure if it is a depth of challenge that a non-technical spectator will appreciate. Time will tell I guess.
Originally Posted by GUI
I really like how the game makes teams change their design strategy. It seems that in previous years, the approach to chassis design has been to make the beefiest, strongest pushing machine. However, Overdrive requires a very different approach. This not only forces teams to broaden their horizons and consider other aspects of chassis design; it also seems like it will level the playing field a bit. Instead of veteran teams improving upon tried and trued designs while rookies are learning the basics, the older teams have to take a few steps back and learn same new things as well.
I’m excited to see that this encourages veterans to rethink things too. I hope the change is severe enough to actually force them to innovate (but only time will tell how they respond).
I’m not sure I agree with you about it being about the “beefiest, strongest pushing machine.” I think we have seen a big emphasis on pushing in several games however. A few games have emphasized maneuverability. Some people say this game emphasizes a high top speed. I’m not entirely sure about that. I think at least as much of it (given field size and the raw amount of stuff floating around) is in good acceleration. That is (according to history as far back as I know it) totally new.
I’ve been in FRC for Aim High and Rack 'n Roll, and I joined right before the IRI, so I got to see Triple Play.
I will have to say this is far and away my favorite FRC game. I see this game design as much more of an “equalizer” than the much maligned teaming algorithm used in last year’s regionals.
This will certainly be an action-packed, amazing game with incredible ingenuity and elegant designs. All teams, regardless of experience or resources, will be able to contribute to their alliances.
I must say that this game is unique. As a software person I am not a huge fan of the Hybrid mode. Especially the rules about not using sequences of buttons to do different things. Also, the fact that we are not allowed to use the camera this year seems like a step in the wrong direction. Maybe there are teams out there that would prefer to use a camera and have the robot find the balls itself rather than have a human do it. Yes the camera was a hassle for a lot of people and was often too much for a rookie team but for veteran teams, or just as a fun thing for the programmers to play with while they waited for the day of ship to get the robot it was quite useful. And besides, Darpa didn’t have people with remotes controlling their robots why should FRC?
My personal complaints about hybrid mode aside I like this game. I mean it is very very unique. And as far as an equalizer between rookies and veterans it looks to be a success. I can’t say how it will be to watch, it is just too nascar for me, but I can say that already I have had a lot of fun thinking up ways to play it. From a learning standpoint the students have a lot of different things to learn in this game.
I agree that there should be some sort of walls or maybe netting around the field to prevent those big balls from leaving the field straight into the sound/scoring tables.
Personally I really like this years program. It has something for everyone.
I like the fact that a team of limited means and experience can participate in a meaningful way and feel good and earn points and have good experience.
I like the fact that there is a lot of potential for automation controls gurus to create cool control things at all sorts of levels of complexity.
I like the fact that a team with a lot of mechanical manipulation talents can strut their stuff.
I like the fact that there is enough twists and turns in the rules to keep young minds a churning.
It provides a big challenge (hurdling a heavy, slippery, BIG ball over a 6.5ft high, 3ft wide overpass) for veteran teams to try, while at the same time giving rookie teams a challenge that is still within their reach (manipulating the ball to get it around the field, or making a robot that can quickly circle the field).
It may have some traffic dilemmas, but I don’t think anyone will be able to tell until the first competition. It is the same size field, but that wall in the middle makes it seem so much smaller… We’ll see.
I also like this game because it makes choosing a strategy very difficult. There are so many ways to score, so many ways to work together as a team to get the balls around the track faster, more efficiently, or decide to work less as a team and have each robot just try to score as many points as they can. Or defensive strategies can be considered, such as blocking the ball as someone is trying to hurdle, or hurdling at the right time so as to slow someone else down, or many other strategies. Scouting will be important, as you don’t just care about the robot’s abilities, but also their favored strategy. Autonomous mode diagrams to help you decide how to best defend against an opponent or how to avoid autonomous defense will be less reliable, because in hybrid mode it seems much easier to change your path, whether at the beginning of the 15 seconds or on the fly.
I agree with a lot of what you said; it was very insightful and well-written. Although there are a lot of changes which I would have preffered the old way, I think that the new game is a nice change, and that FIRST did a good job coming up with something new and exciting.
However… I disagree with the part of your post which I quoted above. It is hard to build the field if you are short on space; the center divider is 27 feet long, the overpass is 27 feet across, and it’s 6.5 feet high. That’s pretty hard to build and store if you don’t have much space to work with. Back in Aim High, we had trouble finding a place for a cut-out sheet propped upright for a corner goal, a half ramp, and a high goal top half… and those are a lot smaller than the overpass/divider. Given, you don’t have to build the whole overpass/divider… so maybe I’m wrong.
(in the event that teams take that route)