Go to Post ...we might be able to take the 'out' out of 'outsourcing' - if we all share a strong cultural set of values, who exactly is 'out'? I think FIRST is a great way to do this, ... - Ian Mackenzie [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > FIRST > General Forum
CD-Events   CD-Media   CD-Spy   FRC-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
Reply
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 10 votes, 5.00 average. Display Modes
  #106   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 05-28-2002, 09:40 AM
pauluffel's Avatar
pauluffel pauluffel is offline
Registered User
AKA: Paul Luffel
FRC #1127 (Lotus Robotics)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: May 2002
Rookie Year: 2002
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 156
pauluffel is a jewel in the roughpauluffel is a jewel in the roughpauluffel is a jewel in the rough
Send a message via AIM to pauluffel
Ultimate Frsbee Style Competition

The main idea that has been posted on this thread is the idea of frisbees. It is not that frisbees are that important or revolutionary, but that they fly effectively. There were a few teams this year that launched soccer balls, but soccer balls aren't that aerodynamic. With the addition of frisbees there would be more of a three dimensional aspect to the game, which is much more interesting. Another way to add this three dimensional aspect is to add multiple layers to the field.

Say you have your floor, and then four or five feet above that you have a level of lexan or some other clear material so that you could still see what was going on below this platform. The scoring of the frisbees could all be on this second level so that robots could merely launch the frisbees to the second level.

Another factor that was missing from last years game was that two similar robots could work together effectively. I f there was a rule such as robots were not allowed to carry frisbees from the floor to the platform, two types of robots would most likely evolve.
A. A robot that would stay on the floor and collect frisbees, then launch them up to the goal on the second level.
B. Robots that would climb up to the second level and catch frisbees and put them in their goal.
When these two types would work together, they would be awesome, but two of one type would not do nearly as well.

Scoring
The goals would be similar to frisbee golf goals where there is a basket to hold the frisbees at the bottom and chains hanging from the top to absorb the impact of the frisbees and slow them down. Each team could have its own goal on the top platform and there would be retro-reflective tape on the goals so that robots could autonomously aim the frisbees at the goal. Robots could also get points for being completely on the platform (i.e. no part of their robot touching the ground.) This would simplify the game in that there would be no zones, which i found to be the hardest part to explain to new recruits.
Reply With Quote
  #107   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 05-28-2002, 03:42 PM
kmcclary's Avatar
kmcclary kmcclary is offline
Founder 830/1015;Mentor 66/470/1502
FRC #0470 (Alpha Omega Robotics)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Rookie Year: 1994
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 489
kmcclary has a reputation beyond reputekmcclary has a reputation beyond reputekmcclary has a reputation beyond reputekmcclary has a reputation beyond reputekmcclary has a reputation beyond reputekmcclary has a reputation beyond reputekmcclary has a reputation beyond reputekmcclary has a reputation beyond reputekmcclary has a reputation beyond reputekmcclary has a reputation beyond reputekmcclary has a reputation beyond repute
Some "general concepts" I'd like to see considered for next year:

1) Qualification vs Final rounds should have the SAME rules. We had in essence two different games this year. Some teams said "to heck with QPs, let's show everyone we can simply CREAM opponents and get ourselves PICKED for the Finals". Example fix for this game: "FPs" could have been accumulated like QPs (starting from zero at the start of the Finals), and places awarded to the top scorers.

2) I'd like to see more teams involved in the Elimination Finals. SEED them with QPs, but let's get more involved in it.

3) A "Rock Paper Scissors" (A/B/C) game strategically where any team scoring with strategy A will beat those doing B, but are vulnerable and can lose to those doing C (etc. around the ring).

This year, "whomever owned the goals owned the game". The game should not be that "swampable". With an A/B/C game, AND alliances, if you are doing "A", then your alliance partner MUST do "B" *very well* to defend YOU against an opponent doing "C". No one solo strategy should be able to swamp the game. This forces more dependency on your partner(s).

4) Active devices or goals on the field. Examples: A goal with a rotating windmill shutter in front of it, or the opening swinging back and forth. You'll have to contend not only with the goal, but the time/phase as well. This might give opponents time to DO something about a machine ABOUT to score. Another: Make a scoring device that robots have to "toggle" to expose YOUR scoring hole.

5) Baskets or goals that COUNT and return the object(s) randomly to the playfield or the other team. This makes it more like many other sports like basketball, soccer, hockey etc. where total object possession time becomes important.

6) Make the need to (or reward) a hand off of an object between alliance partners. Machines often cooperate in industry and have to do object handoffs.

Example: AS LONG AS THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO ALLIANCE ROBOTS RUNNING: A robot that collects the object from the floor may NOT score with it. A robot that scores MUST have had the object handed to it by another robot. (Use at least three robots per alliance to minimize the chances of only one robot running per alliance.) If only one robot is active in an alliance, it may both collect and score. Objects may be handed, tossed, rolled, shot, etc. between robots, but if the object comes to rest on the arena floor before the receiving robot captures it, the receiving robot will have to hand it to another for scoring.

Comments?

- Keith
__________________
Keith McClary - Organizer/Mentor/Sponsor - Ann Arbor MI area FIRST teams
ACTI - Automation Computer Technologies, Inc. (Sponsoring FIRST teams since 2001!)
MI Robot Club (Trainer) / GO-Tech Maker's Club / RepRap-Michigan) / SEMI CNC Club
"Certifiably Insane": Started FIVE FRC teams & many robot clubs (so far)!
2002: 830 "Rat Pack" | 2003-5;14: 1015;1076 "Pi Hi Samurai" | 2005-6: 1549 "Washtenuts"/"Fire Traxx"
2005-(on): 1502 "Technical Difficulties" | 2006-(on): FIRST Volunteer!
2009-(on): 470 "Alpha Omega" | WAFL | Sponsor & "Floating Engineer" for MI Dist 13 (Washtenaw Cnty)
2011: 3638 "Tigertrons" | 2013-(on): 4395 "ViBots" | 2014-(on) 66 "Grizzlies"
"Home" Teams: 66, 470, 1076, 1502, 4395
Local FIRST alumni at or coming to Ann Arbor (UM/EMU/WCC/Cleary)?
...We Want YOU as a Mentor! Please email me for info!
Support CDF Reputation - If a posting helped, thank 'em with rep points!
"It must be FRC build season when your spouse and children become 'Action Items 8 & 9'..."
Reply With Quote
  #108   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 05-28-2002, 10:48 PM
Doogan Doogan is offline
Registered User
#0470 (Alpha Omega)
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Ypsilanti,MI
Posts: 3
Doogan is an unknown quantity at this point
Send a message via AIM to Doogan
Thumbs up

Keith had some really good ideas, and so did a lot of other people. I know that I am really very late, but I just found out about the thread today, and have now read every post on it, so give me a break. I do not have an organized game, but lots and lots of ideas to incorporate into the decision-making process.

The Negative Stuff (Keep it out of the game!)

• I don't think that tie-breakers are in the spirit of FIRST. FIRST is meant to exemplify the business world, where different business or teams don't need to beat each other, but only to succeed. Yes, 2001 was boring. Having two alliances play really well and get the exact same score should mean that they get the exact same QP. Neither one has exhibited dominance. I think Andrew's ideas on this topic were good, including this: have 2x the score for ties, 3x and 1x for normal matches.

• Zones are easy to understand, but not to explain. Avoid them if at all possible. If you must have them, put large volumes of colored tape around them, and keep their purposes clear and distinct. For instance, I think having two zones where balls counted, and one where goals counted, was taking it too far.

• The problems arising from the 2002 goal stuff:
- Being able to take control of a goal, and then hold it no matter what other robots did, was bad.
- Wrestling matches took too much time, too little thought, and had very little action on the common occasion of nearly evenly-matched robots. Seeing one win could be impressive, but the normal results were very boring, at least to me.
- The supremacy of goals over balls ruined the advantages of diversity.

• The proposed "Red and Blue divisions" would not be good, I don't think. There's a lot of value in being allied with a team one match, and against them the next. It keeps people friendly, believe it or not, because there's no one to think of as a solid "enemy". I can see some teams only lending tools to their own division and the like. Nobody in particular, but its important to make it hard for people to slip into the trap of this kind of destructive competition.


The Positive Stuff (Pile it on!)

• One way to make the games easy to understand is to make them similar, in easily perceived ways, to existing popular games. Someone pointed out that football is a pain to learn, and said that we shouldn't worry about being easy to understand either. The problem is that many people devote their lives to football. They learn the rules while they're learning to walk, and then they can follow games for the rest of their lives. This won't work for FIRST. Since the rules must be learned within a weekend, they must be much simpler. Any large bundle of rules will be hard to get across, so making a basic set similar to an existing game is very useful. A whole bundle of rules can be communicated at once: "It's like soccer, but this and that are different..." Speaking of which, that Robsoccer idea was kind of cool, but make the field more interesting than a soccer field.

• Building would be a really cool thing for robots to do. Wacky Warehouse was really neat. How about building defensive structures of some sort, or building things that the robot had to climb on after completing?

• I think that having an active score display is a really good idea. It points to having the score easily determined by computer. Thus, the actual FIRST field must have built-in sensors:

- The weight idea is good. Robots can pile weights on a raised scale, and the score will be determined very easily. For practice, teams can simply use a raised platform. The size of the platform compared to the size of the weights will make piling and building important, because otherwise, they'll fall off. Problems: do robots count? What if a robot pushes down on the scale?

- Have a painted red platform at the blue end of the field, and vice versa. When robot lands on it, red score increases, due to pressure switch or scale in platform. Can be climbed onto. Blue will guard. Maybe being on it for longer produces more points. Possible accessible by bars that must be hung from, a zipline style piece, or the like. These could be useful for evading the defensive robots, and the interplay between defense and offense in guarding such a platform could get very fascinating. Imagine something like a spider going along the bars, being blocked by a robot hanging from them, dropping down, and trying to reach the platform before the other robot got down to block. Lots of speed and agility! The platforms could also have lights that flash while points are being awarded, so that the audience can see what's going on.

- Make it so that items are scored by being inserted through some sort of slipping door, so that they can will be sensed and counted as they go through. This makes color-coding difficult, but I think it's cooler, personally.


• Have a loose rope at one end of the field hook to some strong attachment point, then go through tubing to a gate that scoring pieces must pass through. One robot must pull rope to open gate, while another scores pieces. This makes cooperation important at a different level. I have a picture here, which is fancier than it should be, and really is not meant to endorse the use of balls:


• Not using balls sounds pretty cool. They're getting a bit old.

- Frisbies would be neat, but the protective cage could be a logistic problem. How about large foam discs that couldn't do much damage, but could move like frisbies?

- Is anyone familiar with the "scooters" that consist of a platform about a square foot in size, with a caster at each corner, and a hole in the middle for easy organization on a post? These could be good ball alternatives. They could make play like hockey: shove a bunch off towards a slot that accepts them into a holding area and counts them by switching technology. Lifting might even be discouraged, although not necessarily.

- Building with Rubbermaid or the like would be awesome.

- I like color-coded balls, with one color that gives points to both sides, but it conflicts with my auto-scoring ideas to some extent.

• Keep the field borders the same. They were made from aluminum this year. Be nice!

• Encourage climbing and hanging. Stairs would be really cool. I'm tempted to have a tower with a button at the top, but it would probably be too dangerous.

• I liked the idea of a PVC maze, which could be navigated, limbo'd, or climbed over.

• It is true that hills and chokepoints make play more interesting. Having robots start nearer the middle could also be interesting.

• Maybe each alliance should have one robot start on the ground, the other on a 2' or 3' platform running the fields length. Make it advantageous to pass items back and forth. I'm pirating ideas here, I know, but the point is to strengthen them and get them out there, no?

• Advantage for robots being able to climb on top of each other? That could be pretty cool, or so hard that everyone ignores it. Maybe suggest that everyone's frame be IPS or Bosch, so that they know what they'll likely need to grab onto.

• That "practical goals" initiative with stairs and doorknobs was pretty cool. How about emptying a trash can?

I'm so glad I'm not trying to unify all this into one game. I've put out more ideas than would fit!

Thanks for listening!

Ian Krieg
Reply With Quote
  #109   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 05-29-2002, 03:08 PM
GregT GregT is offline
Registered User
no team
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: FL
Posts: 400
GregT will become famous soon enough
Send a message via AIM to GregT
Like I said earlier, I really like field obstacles, they just make it more interesting.

Its also more impressive to say "we built a robot that puts a 3 foot diamater ball on top of a 7-foot goal. This year the best we could do was "Our robot can lift about 400 pounds".
__________________
The above was my opinion. I'm wrong a lot. I'm sarcastic a lot. Try not to take me too seriously.
Reply With Quote
  #110   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 05-30-2002, 08:59 AM
Bill Enslen's Avatar
Bill Enslen Bill Enslen is offline
Registered User
FRC #0365 (Miracle Workerz)
Team Role: Leadership
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: Wilmington, DE
Posts: 84
Bill Enslen is on a distinguished road
How about Bowling?

Designing a robot to pick up and place bowling pins would be a different challenge!

Game Setup: 18 bowling pins are set up on each side of the center of the field, and four bowling balls are set up on the side of the field as shown in the diagram below. One bowling pin (four total) will be wrapped with retro-reflective tape at its neck and will be placed at the apex of each team’s scoring zones. See attached file for field diagram.

The Game: Robots have to set up bowling pins in their triangular scoring zones, and then roll one or two bowling balls at each scoring zone to knock down the pins. When rolling the balls, the robots must not touch or cross over their foul line. The game pits two robots on each alliance.

Scoring: 10 points for each pin set in a vertical orientation in a triangular scoring zone, plus
10 points for each pin knocked over by a bowling ball, plus
50 point bonus for each strike (all ten pins in a scoring zone knocked over by a single ball), and
25 point bonus for each spare (all ten pins in a scoring zone knocked over by two balls)

Disadvantages: No role for the human player. No robot-vs-robot contact, or alliance-vs-alliance interaction. It is essentially a game of robot skill.

Advantages: Most everyone knows the rules of bowling. It is a made-for-TV event, but without the violence of Battlebots. FIRST has never used bowling pins or balls with the weight of bowling balls. Would be a good challenge for robot design. NO QP’s, only raw scores determine seeding for elimination rounds.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	2003 game proposal 2.jpg
Views:	284
Size:	170.9 KB
ID:	551  
Reply With Quote
  #111   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 05-30-2002, 09:48 AM
Unsung FIRST Hero
Nate Smith Nate Smith is offline
FRC Key Volunteer Trainer
AKA: CrazyNate
no team
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Rookie Year: 1998
Location: Old Town, Maine
Posts: 1,029
Nate Smith is a splendid one to beholdNate Smith is a splendid one to beholdNate Smith is a splendid one to beholdNate Smith is a splendid one to beholdNate Smith is a splendid one to beholdNate Smith is a splendid one to beholdNate Smith is a splendid one to beholdNate Smith is a splendid one to behold
Send a message via AIM to Nate Smith Send a message via Yahoo to Nate Smith
Re. the Schedule...

There's been at least a little discussion in this thread of possibly changing the schedule to allow more teams to compete in the elimination matches. While I'm all for more teams being able to compete longer into the competition, I think the only way we're going to see that is if the alliance size increases(to 3v3 or 4v4, maybe?). Here's why...

-At some sites, they did not have many more teams competing than the current 24 required for elims. You would be hard pressed to increase this number much more without somehow(?) guaranteeing that at least X teams would be at a regional event.

-There was a time when everyone advanced to the elims. However, with the growth of FIRST(and the realization a few years ago that eventually everyone was not going to be able to go to EPCOT,) they moved away from this. I believe that this moving away from "all teams advance" was to prepare us for the time when not all teams would be able to attend the championship.

-I've heard before of cutting practice time in half and starting qualifying on Thursday afternoon as a way to give everyone more play time. While from a team's perspective(including my own when I was on that side of things full-time), this is a no-brainer way to get more qualifying time in, on the event side of things, it's not quite that easy. At every regional I was at, and even at nationals, there were still teams registering and getting inspected up until the last minute on Thursday night, with some inspections not being completed until the pit area opened on Friday. With the current pseudo-random match pairings system, there is no real way to say, "OK, these teams have been inspected, so let's have them start qualifying tonight, and everyone else starts in the morning." Not to mention the logistical nightmare of such a setup if it did exist.

Just my thoughts, seeing things from both sides of the coin...
__________________
Nate Smith
nsmith@smythsoft.com
12 seasons, 4 teams, and more time logged behind the scorekeeper's table than I care to remember...
returning for 2011? only time will tell...
Reply With Quote
  #112   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 05-30-2002, 02:33 PM
DKolberg DKolberg is offline
Mentor Iron Giants
AKA: David Kolberg
FRC #5069 (Iron Giants)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: May 2002
Rookie Year: 2000
Location: South Bend
Posts: 39
DKolberg has a spectacular aura aboutDKolberg has a spectacular aura about
The scoring seems to be of some concern. It appears that the goal of the scoring is to keep one alliance from stomping the other. Yet the current scoring allows for zero points to the winner by some teams leaving a zone to reduce the points to the winner. I believe this is due to the disparity in 3x rule. One simple fix is to give the winner the total of both teams’ score while the loser gets only their own. This will keep the scoring close and reward a team that consistently wins while not hurting a team that loses occasionally too much. Ties can be handled either with tiebreakers as in 2002 or with both teams getting the total score.

As for the difference between the qualifying and elimination matches, it is not all that bad. It opens up more strategies as seen in the last couple of years with team 111 in 2001 building a helper bot to control the bridge and help the team with very little scoring power on their own. And this year with team 71 building a robot that was so-so for the qualifying and great for the finals. It opens up a level of strategy that relies heavily upon your alliance and / or on the ability to get picked in the finals. Not everyone can build a robot that will consistently be in the top 8 and therefore build robots that will assist other stronger robots in hopes of getting picked by the top 8. I believe that this shows a lot of what FIRST is all about, teamwork and sportsmanship. However, if it is necessary to eliminate the two styles, then just make it 3 rounds with the highest QP at the end winner.

As for game strategies, remember no one was undefeatable. Every robot out there could have been defeated in some way. Having the strongest robot is not always the winning robot. The speed/torque thing is less important than the strategies. I like the 2 vs 2 as this makes for a more exciting game and any more like 2 vs 2 vs 2 would be too confusing for spectators and teams to watch. We need to keep this game simple so that small teams have a chance of winning as much as the larger well equipped teams do. I like the autonomous aspects for programming, however, the controller would have to over hauled to allow more storage and faster processing to do anything close to tracking or identifying an object. We are already at the limits of memory and processing with just controlling the steering and simple effectors used in 2002.

I like adding time as an element for scoring as in 2001. This can still be accomplished in a 2 vs 2 game as when any two kill switches from either side are hit the game ends and the score is added up. This adds a lot of strategy to a simple game. Either wait in order for more QP or stop while you’re ahead with a lower QP.

I like the idea of moving things and lifting them to score. Balancing was a nice challenge while not out of the grasp of any team. However, trying to balance while opponents are trying to keep you from balancing will be very hard and not likely to be achieved. I also like the idea of changing the score at the last moment of a game. This keeps the score high as both teams think they are ahead until the last thing that changes the score like the hanging on the bar in 2000.
Reply With Quote
  #113   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 06-01-2002, 05:43 PM
Andrew Andrew is offline
Registered User
#0356
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Little Rock, AR
Posts: 393
Andrew is a name known to allAndrew is a name known to allAndrew is a name known to allAndrew is a name known to allAndrew is a name known to allAndrew is a name known to all
More ideas for game structure, some good, some not so good

1. At the end of Qualifying, top N teams (by accumulation of QPs) choose alliance partners

Alliances are reranked based on total QPs for alliance. This ranking is used for seeding the brackets.

Why? Aside from adding another widget that teams have to consider in alliance selection, it will make it more likely that the Elimination Game is the same as the Qualifying Game. There will be a "cost" associated with picking a team with low QPs.

I don't think this is a very good idea, but it might lead to one.

2. Fouls: Referees really only had the options of dropping the "big one" (disqualification) or letting stuff go.

If refs can call fouls, which either:
a. penalize the team by some points or
b. disable the fouling team's robot for some number of seconds (call this the penalty box option)
c. disabling operator control of a robot (which might encourage autonomy)

alliances will not be "wiped out" if one partner commits an offense.

Refs would have a lot more control over the game.

For instance, "Gratuitous Bashing" might result in a one point per bash penalty.

"Unnecessary Pinning" might result in a 5 second disable, which would potentially allow the pinned robot to get free.

Likewise, "Malicious Carpet Bunching" might require a 10 second disable. "Unnecessary Extreme Malicious Carpet Bunching" would, of course, result in a disable and disqualify.

I realize this might require too much referee training and would require some extra effort for the controls people and the score keepers. It might also require some funky ninja hand signals to be worked out between the refs and the teams (that could be an entire appendix in the rules book).

But, think of all the fun this would generate in naming the fouls!

Andrew
Team 356
Reply With Quote
  #114   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 06-03-2002, 07:41 AM
RBrandy RBrandy is offline
Registered User
AKA: Ryan
#0093 (NEW Apple Corps)
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Rookie Year: 2000
Location: Appleton, WI
Posts: 302
RBrandy is a jewel in the roughRBrandy is a jewel in the roughRBrandy is a jewel in the rough
Send a message via AIM to RBrandy
my design

OK

My design is kind of challenging. There are ten platforms on the field on either side (five on the top five on the bottom). The games will still be 2min. And will again have 2 teams per alliance. The teams each start in thier own home zone and want to get to the opposing home zone to score 10 points each. On the way, they need to score more pionts by; 1) moving their own colors plasic bin goal in to the middle +10 or can move the others in to your home zone (not on the platforms) -10 for the other team, 2) by getting the small, orange discs into your goal +10/disc, or putting yellow discs in the opposing alliances goal -10/disc for the other alliance. The goal is to out score the other alliance. The finals would be run the same way as this years, the alliances will have 3 teams and each will play in at least one of the 3 games but NO teams can run all 3 times. I have enclosed a pic too.

I hope you will like the idea cause it came to me on math class one day.

-Ryan
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	2003 field design-model-text.jpg
Views:	212
Size:	185.3 KB
ID:	555  
__________________
Team 93 Alumini
Reply With Quote
  #115   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 06-03-2002, 10:39 AM
Lauren Hafford Lauren Hafford is offline
Registered User
#0159 (Alpine Robotics)
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Fort Collins, CO
Posts: 53
Lauren Hafford is an unknown quantity at this point
Send a message via AIM to Lauren Hafford
My ideas...

Okay, so here's my idea. It's sortof ripped off and built on a bunch of other ideas from other posts, but whatever.

I tried to make it simple but good

It will be a 2 v 2 game with three minutes and two periods, sort of...a one minute, then a break, and then a two-minute period.

The field is set up with robots on the ground in their zone (there are only two zones and an enclosure) and a "pen" in the middle - octagonal, maybe, made of a barrier similar to the one in 2001 - the wood bar across the bottom and the metal one above it). Inside the enclosure will be a bunch of building blocks - the ones from your childhood, with squares and wedges and pillars and crazy arches and stuff - with the only difference being easier to build and stack and much bigger (the cubes could be 7'' cubed). During the first minute, alliances can cross the middle line and it is a scramble to pick up and gather as many blocks as possible and bring them to your zone. You can get blocks from the other side if you steal them, and you can begin building, but it might be knocked over by the other team. Now, as i was coming up with this game, i thought that it would just be shameless destruction - it's much easier to bowl over a structure than it is to create it. So that's why there's the second period - no robot can cross over the line, and both teams are trying to build their structures.

Points can be given to teams on how high their structure is overall, how many blocks are off of the ground and unsupported and how many blocks are underneath a certain block.

If the period thing is too boring (it would only be building) then it could be one period, and points could be deducted from the alliance that knocks down a tower - it could add interesting strategy - "if we knock it over we'll win but get more points, but if we leave it we'll lose and possible get more points".

There is no part for the human player that i see - throwing blocks at other towers would just be mean, man, MEAN.

I also like the idea of finals played the way they are and quals giving the added score of both teams to the winners and the loser's score to the "non-winners".

And if it's just blocks in the zone it's a point apiece (so rookies can do something)

Other modifications to make it more complex:
2nd level cubes - 2' up on both sides of the home zone to build upon - double score (this is another good task for rookies)

Pillars 5' or 7' high to build on

sharpened stakes in pits with cobras to feed food blocks for quadruple the points (just kidding....i better end this post soon)

so that's that.

Lauren
Reply With Quote
  #116   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 06-05-2002, 11:42 PM
dlavery's Avatar
dlavery dlavery is offline
Curmudgeon
FRC #0116 (Epsilon Delta)
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Rookie Year: 1996
Location: Herndon, VA
Posts: 3,168
dlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond repute
First off, thank you to everyone that has posted their concepts, comments, concerns, conundrums, counsel, complaints, consists, considerations, and other things that start with "c". They are most appreciated, and every one of them has been read, reviewed, and passed along to the appropriate game designers. If you have more ideas, we still want to hear them – keep 'em coming!

Also, I want to ask for a little help in answering a question that has me stumped. Several of the posts have suggested having a game design that will allow real time display of scores to the audiences as the game progresses. It is suggested this will pull the audience into the game a little more, and get them more involved. But coming up with a reliable, accurate way to do this that does not interrupt the flow of the game may be problematic.

Consider this: sports that keep running scores during the course of the game stop the game after each score to confirm that the points are valid and appropriate. Only after the score/goal is verified are the points posted and the game proceeds. For example, in basketball, football, fencing, lacrosse, and soccer the game is stopped when a goal is scored. The points are posted and the game clock restarted only after the score is confirmed. Tennis, baseball, golf, gymnastics, and archery don’t have to worry about a clock. Things like skiing, racing, and swimming worry only about the clock and don’t worry about an accurate real-time display of points.

I have been trying to think of a counter-example where this is not true, to form an existence proof that the idea of accurate real-time running scores during a timed match is something that is achievable. So here is the question: can anyone think of a sport or game or event that has a fixed amount of game time (i.e. there is a game clock) and a running score, where the game is NOT stopped after each score? The only ones that I could come up with that were even close were boxing and full-contact karate; points are accumulated during the course of the fight, but not displayed to the audience or participants until the bout is over, so this is still an imperfect example. Can anyone come up with a better one?

-dave lavery
FIRST Executive Advisory Board

p.s. I recognize that one way around this is to not require that the score displayed during the play of the game be 100% accurate, and all scores are subject to verification by the judges after the round ends. But that can end up causing more problems than it solves when displayed scores are revised by the judges and the audience is confused, etc.

p.p.s I really liked Lauren’s idea of "sharpened stakes in pits with cobras to feed food blocks for quadruple the points." LMAO!
Reply With Quote
  #117   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 06-06-2002, 12:10 AM
Wetzel's Avatar
Wetzel Wetzel is offline
DC Robotics
FRC #2914 (Tiger Pride)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: DC
Posts: 3,421
Wetzel has a reputation beyond reputeWetzel has a reputation beyond reputeWetzel has a reputation beyond reputeWetzel has a reputation beyond reputeWetzel has a reputation beyond reputeWetzel has a reputation beyond reputeWetzel has a reputation beyond reputeWetzel has a reputation beyond reputeWetzel has a reputation beyond reputeWetzel has a reputation beyond reputeWetzel has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Wetzel
Dance Dance Revoultion has a time limit AND a constantly updating score....

How that is implemented onto a FIRST game I'm not sure, unless you make the game location sensitive or have few scoreing pieces....
hmmmmmmm

Or you could just have the robots play DDR.



Wetzel

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
How's that work?
I don't know, I just come up with the ideas.
Reply With Quote
  #118   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 06-06-2002, 09:22 AM
Unsung FIRST Hero
Nate Smith Nate Smith is offline
FRC Key Volunteer Trainer
AKA: CrazyNate
no team
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Rookie Year: 1998
Location: Old Town, Maine
Posts: 1,029
Nate Smith is a splendid one to beholdNate Smith is a splendid one to beholdNate Smith is a splendid one to beholdNate Smith is a splendid one to beholdNate Smith is a splendid one to beholdNate Smith is a splendid one to beholdNate Smith is a splendid one to beholdNate Smith is a splendid one to behold
Send a message via AIM to Nate Smith Send a message via Yahoo to Nate Smith
Real Time Scoring Example

Quote:
Originally posted by dlavery

Also, I want to ask for a little help in answering a question that has me stumped. Several of the posts have suggested having a game design that will allow real time display of scores to the audiences as the game progresses. It is suggested this will pull the audience into the game a little more, and get them more involved. But coming up with a reliable, accurate way to do this that does not interrupt the flow of the game may be problematic.

I have been trying to think of a counter-example where this is not true, to form an existence proof that the idea of accurate real-time running scores during a timed match is something that is achievable.
For probably one of the best examples, look at the CDI...for the past 2 years(maybe longer, I've only been involved with it for 2 yrs), they've used a real time scoring system which very clearly says on the screen that it is an unofficial score, with the official score coming only after the referees have verified the positions of everything on the field. As a referee at the CDI for the past 2 years, I can say that in a large number of cases, the score did not have to be adjusted between the unofficial and official tallies, and if it did, it was for only a few points.

To use another example, at the two regionals where I ran the scoring system this year, I was doing a form of "pseudo-realtime" scoring, where based on my viewpoint, I would try to input the scores into the form on the scoring system as they happened. In most cases, the only thing I would need to adjust once the referees turned in their scoring sheet was the number of balls in the goals(the hardest thing to count from the sidelines)...
__________________
Nate Smith
nsmith@smythsoft.com
12 seasons, 4 teams, and more time logged behind the scorekeeper's table than I care to remember...
returning for 2011? only time will tell...
Reply With Quote
  #119   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 06-06-2002, 10:38 AM
Kris Verdeyen's Avatar
Kris Verdeyen Kris Verdeyen is offline
LSR Emcee/Alamo Game Announcer
FRC #0118 (Robonauts)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 667
Kris Verdeyen has a reputation beyond reputeKris Verdeyen has a reputation beyond reputeKris Verdeyen has a reputation beyond reputeKris Verdeyen has a reputation beyond reputeKris Verdeyen has a reputation beyond reputeKris Verdeyen has a reputation beyond reputeKris Verdeyen has a reputation beyond reputeKris Verdeyen has a reputation beyond reputeKris Verdeyen has a reputation beyond reputeKris Verdeyen has a reputation beyond reputeKris Verdeyen has a reputation beyond repute
A correction

Quote:
Originally posted by dlavery
So here is the question: can anyone think of a sport or game or event that has a fixed amount of game time (i.e. there is a game clock) and a running score, where the game is NOT stopped after each score? The only ones that I could come up with that were even close were boxing and full-contact karate; points are accumulated during the course of the fight, but not displayed to the audience or participants until the bout is over, so this is still an imperfect example. Can anyone come up with a better one?
How about wrestling? The referee is out on the mat, right next to the participants, and signals scoring in real time. The score is then put on the board for all to see.

The difference between that and boxing is that the ref in a wrestling match is the absolute authority over whether a wrestler has scored or not, while a boxing match is scored by a panel of independant judges, who, in order to maintain objectivity, must be ignorant of each other's score.

That said, there's really too much going on in FIRST matches to have a single ref able to keep track of it all. The best plan would be to display an unofficial running score, like what was done on Einstien at nationals.
__________________
...Only a few people are awake and they live in a state of constant total amazement. -JP Shanley, Joe vs. the Volcano
Reply With Quote
  #120   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 06-06-2002, 11:22 AM
Andy Baker's Avatar Woodie Flowers Award
Andy Baker Andy Baker is offline
President, AndyMark, Inc.
FRC #3940 (CyberTooth)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: May 2001
Rookie Year: 1998
Location: Kokomo, Indiana
Posts: 3,358
Andy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Andy Baker
Basketball!!!!!!!!!

Quote:
Originally posted by dlavery
For example, in basketball, ... the game is stopped when a goal is scored.

So here is the question: can anyone think of a sport or game or event that has a fixed amount of game time (i.e. there is a game clock) and a running score, where the game is NOT stopped after each score?
I still think that Basketball is the answer, or at least a derivative of it.

In Basketball, the game doesn't have to be stopped. In a regular game, many points can be scored if there are no fouls or rule violations (travelling, double-dribble, etc.) If FIRST can reasonably penalize fouls and rule violations quickly, fairly, and consistently while not stopping the clock, then basketball would be a great FIRST game.

I still think that Basketball would be a very successful FIRST game. Sure, it would have to be tweaked a bit to fit the FIRST format of playing many rounds, but those details can be worked out. The positives involved are SOOO big that they would outweigh some of the difficulties of the details. I'd like the bring up these positives again:

1. Field setup is easy. Every HS gym has a basketball goal or two... all they need is carpet. Sure, the competition sites may need a more protective layer under the carpet, but that can be done.

2. Media and fan friendly. Basketball is arguably the best sport to watch on television. Most people understand it, and it is easy to explain.

3. Design diversity and teamwork. Robots can still do different functions while playing basketball... they can play defense, shoot long shots, dunk, block, and pass. Would the ultimate robot do all of these things well, or just one extremely well? I don't know. Since it's not obvious, many robots would have different designs. Also, this game would make us work together in order to win. The passing robot would get the ball to the dunking robot, for example.

4. School and American culture acceptance would be easily attainable. Imagine a demonstration during a halftime show of a robot team versus a human team... it would be very entertaining. The audience would understand the game easily and start rooting for a side to win. If the robots are good enough to win, it would be downright scary.

5. Embrace the sporting world, don't twart it. Sure, heroes should not be sports figures and it's the entire professional sports business has gotten way out of hand. However, bashing and ridiculing athletics doesn't convert too many people over to the FIRST program. Accepting the fact that the American sports culture is not going away is what FIRST needs to do... they need to make an attempt at playing one of their games.

I really think that this could be huge. I really think that FIRST robots should play basketball.

Andy B.

ps... and I used to wrestle in high school... sheesh!

Last edited by Andy Baker : 06-06-2002 at 11:26 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2002 game prediction contest!!! Ken Leung Rumor Mill 41 12-31-2007 05:18 PM
Cal Game 2003 date decided... Who is interested? Ken Leung Off-Season Events 15 06-02-2003 05:48 AM
FIRST Report Card 2003 Andy Grady General Forum 23 05-13-2003 04:11 PM
game design challenge: what was your entry Ryan Foley General Forum 1 03-20-2003 08:42 PM
in response to the 2003 game suspicion Sachiel7 Rumor Mill 5 02-02-2003 09:47 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:59 PM.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi