2013 Game?

[Walter Deitzler]

To take the spotlight away from the FMS issues and to focus on something more fun and lighthearted, what do you think (or hope) next year's game will be? I personally want to see a game with moving targets and/or multiple ways to score. I also want to see some type of game piece that either a) hasn't been used on a while or, b) hasn't been used at all.

Does 2013= Return of the tetras?

Ideas? Thoughts?

[MrTechCenter]

Seeing as the just had a couple of shooting games and another racking game, I think they're going back to a stacking game.

[akoscielski3]

Completely agree with a stacking game.

But honestly... its too early for this.

[bduddy]

Does 2013= Return of the tetras? I've been thinking about that... last year was a lot like 2007 (hanging tubes on pegs), and this year was a lot like 2006 (shooting balls into high goals... also Bill said in his talk that the "backup plan" for this year was to redo Aim High with minor changes!). Could that mean that next year will be a lot like 2005? Making new games a lot like older games could be a way to achieve the GDC's stated goal of creating two games in the time normally reserved for one... it would also make me happy, as Triple Play is still one of my favorites.

[Andrew Lawrence]

Even I want a small break now that the season's over.

Too....soon.....

[Walter Deitzler]

Completely agree with a stacking game.

But honestly... its too early for this.

Even I want a small break now that the season's over.

Too....soon.....

I see what you guys mean, but I started this thread to take some of the focus of the the FMS woes right now and give people a nice, fun thread to think about and read.

Otherwise, I would have waited too.

Maybe the game this year will be stacking water filled bins...

[Andrew Lawrence]

I see what you guys mean, but I started this thread to take some of the focus of the the FMS woes right now and give people a nice, fun thread to think about and read.

Otherwise, I would have waited too.

Maybe the game this year will be stacking water filled bins...

The tetras don't look too much fun to play with. Look too complex and frustrating.

I like the past, but I want something like 2010: Original. But it should be fun to play like this year.

[Chinmay]

3 words "Super Smash Brothers"

Anyone else hear the theme music playing after the introduction of lots of the presenters. Im not saying I didnt like it, I think its a clue for next years game ;)

Also, the use of pirates of the Caribbean music was just awesome during the matches (I think during division eliminations).

[brndn]

Could we copy and paste the entire "2012 Game" thread and scratch off anything suggested that's remotely similar to Rebound Rumble? :rolleyes:

[Andrew Lawrence]

3 words "Super Smash Brothers"

Anyone else hear the theme music playing after the introduction of lots of the presenters. Im not saying I didnt like it, I think its a clue for next years game ;)

Also, the use of pirates of the Caribbean music was just awesome during the matches (I think during division eliminations).

A lot of people noticed Smash Bros. I can see it now: "Break the targets!"

[Walter Deitzler]

The tetras don't look too much fun to play with. Look too complex and frustrating.

I like the past, but I want something like 2010: Original. But it should be fun to play like this year.

I think that the end game should be some combination of 2011 and 2012.
Why 2011? Because it was a race, and whoever won it got more points, making the endgame HUGE at every level, as opposed to this game, where, by the time you got to division finals, everyone was tripleing. But I also want the endgame to be exiting to watch, like the bridge balancing, as opposed to minibots that moved to fast to see or too slow to care.

[EricH]

The tetras don't look too much fun to play with. Look too complex and frustrating.
Look past that. The World Champions and World Finalists had extremely simple grabbers. The multi-tetra grabbers were the complex ones.


Actually, I'd like to see a return of the Stack Attack bins. Or use the KOP bins as game objects. Something with bins would be quite the twist--and 10 years after Stack Attack, perfect timing.

[Bryan Herbst]

Maybe Dave Lavery left us a clue somewhere... Quick, start analyzing his speech!

[MrTechCenter]

Haha. Everybody's trying to find hints everywhere. I bet they haven't even decided on next year's game yet.

[Walter Deitzler]

Maybe Dave Lavery left us a clue somewhere... Quick, start analyzing his speech!

Hmmm, lets see... Something about his day job= the sun (because sun=day)= PLASMA GAME! :ahh: :ahh: :ahh:

[Flimsor]

The video at the start with the game ball being bounced up by the pinball-like flippers gave me the idea of having a pinball type game. I think that'd be cool.

[bduddy]

Haha. Everybody's trying to find hints everywhere. I bet they haven't even decided on next year's game yet.Actually, GDC members have repeatedly told us that yes, they have already created next year's game. I wouldn't be surprised if they "tweak" it between now and then, though, based off of what worked and didn't work this year.

[BleakRNS]

The Red Alliance chat was trying to find some hints for next year during Dean's speech. This (http://i.imgur.com/ZSOOz.jpg) is a bit of what they came up with, but I think there may have been some more clues. The quotes highlighted in blue have to do with when Dean paused after saying "connections," while the yellow highlighted posts deal with Dean's mention of "high visibility."

[TimSchley]

inb4watergame

[lorem3k]

Rock climbing.

[Andrew Lawrence]

The Red Alliance chat was trying to find some hints for next year during Dean's speech. This (http://i.imgur.com/ZSOOz.jpg) is a bit of what they came up with, but I think there may have been some more clues. The quotes highlighted in blue have to do with when Dean paused after saying "connections," while the yellow highlighted posts deal with Dean's mention of "high visibility."

It's no secret. Bill Miller even admitted that the Kinect would be huge next year. I was laughing at all the references Dave made about the Kinect when speaking, since he acted like we didn't know it.

[Mark Sheridan]

I really like the 2005 game piece. It was a fun challenge to figure out the simplest way to hold it. I hope next year's game piece is something we have not seen before or at the very least something we have not seen in a long time.

I think a simple PVC pipe will present a difficult challenge especially if there is a lot of pipes to score.


I like this year's cooperation bonus compared to previous attempts. I felt its value was too high. If next year has it again, it should be weighted less than a win. Also, I think it needs to be possible for one robot to achieve it. It could be difficult for one robot to achieve compared to having two robots going for (like filling up a goal with a certain # of game pieces, two robots would be quicker). I don't want a good robot to be punished in the rankings by playing against a weak alliance that can't cooperate.

[qzrrbz]

...

I like this year's cooperation bonus compared to previous attempts. I felt its value was too high. If next year has it again, it should be weighted less than a win. Also, I think it needs to be possible for one robot to achieve it. It could be difficult for one robot to achieve compared to having two robots going for (like filling up a goal with a certain # of game pieces, two robots would be quicker). I don't want a good robot to be punished in the rankings by playing against a weak alliance that can't cooperate.

Wouldn't one robot cooperating be similar to the sound of one hand clapping? A Zen game! :)

[lorem3k]

I really like the 2005 game piece. It was a fun challenge to figure out the simplest way to hold it. I hope next year's game piece is something we have not seen before or at the very least something we have not seen in a long time.

I think a simple PVC pipe will present a difficult challenge especially if there is a lot of pipes to score.
Depending on how the PVC pipes are dispensed, teams who also did FTC in 2010 could have an advantage, just being able to make essentially an oversized version of their FTC scoring mechanism.

Wouldn't one robot cooperating be similar to the sound of one hand clapping? A Zen game! :)
It could be done by awarding bonus seeding points to one alliance if they score a certain amount of points on their own goal. This would also add the strategic element of deciding whether or not to risk their victory by scoring points for the other alliance. It would be very interesting to see that play out.

[EricH]

Depending on how the PVC pipes are dispensed, teams who also did FTC in 2010 could have an advantage, just being able to make essentially an oversized version of their FTC scoring mechanism.

Before or after the pipes are filled with varying amounts of water and capped? *ducks*

[JakeD]

If it was up to me I'd like to see a game piece like 2008. Its something that teams have seen before but on a scale that makes everything teams know about handling that type of object have to be reexamined.

As for an end game I'm a big fan of robots having to be elevated in some way. My favorite is 2007 where one robot has to elevate the others. 2004 and 2010 are fun to because it makes for a great spectator event when the end game involves robots trying to get up high in some way.

I'd like to see a co-op with the 2007 style end game as well. Co-op points based on one team elevating the other alliances robots above x height. More points for multiple robots. Get to see teams decide how many robots they think they could raise in 1 go. Plus imagine a blue robot raises 2 red robots, while the remaining red robot raises the two other blue for a full co-op.

[Tetraman]

I, for one, approve of tetras returning.

[Anupam Goli]

I, for one, approve of tetras returning.

Tetras would be cool, but put a twist. Get a different random shape. Something like a hexagonal prism that's been hollowed out.

[ZipTie3182]

It's by no means a "hint" but in the videos of the Q&A session at champs, Bill Miller mentioned that they are possibly scrapping their plan for 2013 due to seeing this year's game live. I think he meant that after seeing this year's game, they for some reason changed their mind about what they had planned. On that note, he repeatedly said they were very pleased with how cooperation worked out and that it was very hard to seed well if you didn't cooperate. So, I would expect co-op to be as value as it was this year again.

I also recall him very strongly emphasizing using the kinect in the offseason and that while this year the field did not support on-robot kinects, that may not be the case in future. Therefore, I see on-robot capabilities being a bonus next year or in 2014.

Just my thoughts....::rtm::

-Anna

[Bryce Paputa]

I predict stacking and/or very small game objects (similar to the FTC balls this year). Last year's FTC game involved bridges, and so did this year's FRC game. I think this will happen again. There are also the Tetras.

[Mark Sheridan]

Wouldn't one robot cooperating be similar to the sound of one hand clapping? A Zen game! :)

Yeah I guess it would. I am searching for the robot equivalent of having to get a dresser up a flight of stairs. I once had to do it by myself. It was the longest hour of my life as moved the giant dresser one step at a time. It was so big, I could not grab it properly. It was not that heavy cause I took everything out but if I had a second person helping me, it would have been a 3 minute task.

So I am thinking of a robot task similar in theme where one robot could do it by itself but it will be very difficult. The crowd reaction could be, "that robot is going to actually try it by itself?" Maybe a dead lift of an elongated version of the 2002 goals? So one robots CG would be far away from the goal's CG.

It could be done by awarding bonus seeding points to one alliance if they score a certain amount of points on their own goal. This would also add the strategic element of deciding whether or not to risk their victory by scoring points for the other alliance. It would be very interesting to see that play out.

That is another idea, if an alliances have a minimum score, the opposite team gets cooperation points.

It would encourage us as a community to help every robot to play the game. However, i think its a sad scenario if your alliance can't score and you need your opponents to score for you. Its kinda like the AYSO soccer mercy rules. I would feel even more bummed out if it happened to be. Ideally it would be that alliances won't play defense until the minimum scores are achieved.

[Kit-kat2936]

I think it could have something that has to do with this years FTC game. Last years FTC had balancing, and this year had balancing.

[372 lives on]

I think they will have another game similar to this one.
easy to understand scoring/ interesting to general public.


so not tetras

[Mark Sheridan]

I think they will have another game similar to this one.
easy to understand scoring/ interesting to general public.


so not tetras

2005 was won by scoring more tetras and playing tic tac toe. I think that is pretty simple, I never had a student who struggled to grasp what 2005 game was after watching it. All you need to say, tetras are 3 points, controlling a row was 10 points. Simple

[Ian Curtis]

I don't know what the nature of the game will be, but I think this graphic is particularly telling. It seems that 2012 was pretty universally acclaimed as a pretty enjoyable game, and @FRCFMS gave us data on how teams were scoring points. In Rebound Rumble, there was a pretty even distribution between the three parts of the game, teams scored about as many points in autonomous as they did in teleop, as they did in the endgame. There are obviously outliers, but in general it was pretty close. This would provide a good scoring roadmap as FIRST moves forward.

http://i.imgur.com/I45SXl.jpg

Now I'm kind of curious to see what this distribution looked like at the CMP though. There's something to be said for how the typical field plays the game versus the top tier, and the championship field was significantly outscoring the week 2 field.

[nahstobor]

Aim High II.

With a high goal that doesn't jam and real time scoring.

[Walter Deitzler]

Aim High II.

With a high goal that doesn't jam and real time scoring.

Sounds quite a bit like rebound rumble. Plus, I doubt that they would do similar shooting games two years in a row.

[Austin2046]

Personally, I like the idea of tetras, batons, traffic cones, footballs, plastic bins... or other oddly shaped and unique game pieces. I even liked the inner tubes for logomotion and rack and roll, but by now inner tubes and balls seem like problems we've already solved. We know how to manipulate those game pieces and score them. So it's my hope that the GDC comes up with an interesting game piece for next year's game.

I was thinking instead of having 1 standard game piece we could have 3 different ones... they could be completely different or even just different sizes. So we'd have to build a device that could handle the 3 different game pieces, or 3 different devices... or we'd have to plan on manipulating only 1 or 2 of the game pieces... and the game pieces could all have different point values. I think it would be really interesting and challenging from both a design and strategic standpoint, making for interesting and different machines as well as gameplay.

[z_beeblebrox]

Something capture-the-flaggy would be cool.

[lorem3k]

That is another idea, if an alliances have a minimum score, the opposite team gets cooperation points.

It would encourage us as a community to help every robot to play the game. However, i think its a sad scenario if your alliance can't score and you need your opponents to score for you. Its kinda like the AYSO soccer mercy rules. I would feel even more bummed out if it happened to be. Ideally it would be that alliances won't play defense until the minimum scores are achieved.
My idea isn't quite "if the opposing alliance has a certain amount of points, you get coopertition points", because in that case, if you were playing against a strong alliance you could just let them reach that score by themselves. I was thinking that one alliance would NEED to contribute a certain amount to their opponents' score to earn the bonus.

I do like the idea of a capture-the-flag style game, it would need an interesting field design though. A completely flat 27'x54' field without any sort of "base" that the flag is in would be somewhat awkward to defend.

[Savvy578]

They did say something about better visibility too.

[Mark Sheridan]

My idea isn't quite "if the opposing alliance has a certain amount of points, you get coopertition points", because in that case, if you were playing against a strong alliance you could just let them reach that score by themselves. I was thinking that one alliance would NEED to contribute a certain amount to their opponents' score to earn the bonus.

I do like the idea of a capture-the-flag style game, it would need an interesting field design though. A completely flat 27'x54' field without any sort of "base" that the flag is in would be somewhat awkward to defend.

Oh ok. I was thinking sort of the same thing, that an elite alliance needs to score for the other alliance too if they want the bonus. That having a 100-0 score would yield only the QP points of a win.


I am kinda reluctant about capture the flag, because in 2002 it was a battle between drivetrains with the highest gear reductions and traction possible. It inspiring for me to witness such great engineering but to go through that again with so many people knowing the tricks from that year would be grueling.

In 2002, I like teams like 60 that picked up the goals. So I was thinking it would be neat to see two robots trying to dead lift a massive goal for the cooperation bonus. The rules would prohibit two robots from the same alliance touching the goal. Then an elite team could figure out a way to do the process solo. like using an alliance partner as a counterweight.

In eliminations, two of the goals would be provided, one for each alliance.

[Dr. Shocker]

I would be interested in either a game with more contact, or control of more pieces being allowed. I think it would probably be a lot more exciting for non-FIRST spectators to watch with more robot n robot action, or with game pieces flying everywhere, instead of being so limited.

[JohnSchneider]

Lets make the field a little easier to traverse as well. Box bots were next to useless this year as they couldn't lower the bridge or go over the barrier.

Last years game is an awesome example of how an even field allows box bots to be useful. 2010 wasn't too bad either since you could place them in the defensive zone from the beginning.

[lorem3k]

Lets make the field a little easier to traverse as well. Box bots were next to useless this year as they couldn't lower the bridge or go over the barrier.

Last years game is an awesome example of how an even field allows box bots to be useful. 2010 wasn't too bad either since you could place them in the defensive zone from the beginning.
If they keep following the same pattern they have been for the past few years, next year will have a flat field

[Quantam]

I've heard from some other members on my team that they heard Dean Kamen himself point some students in an aqueous direction for next years competition

[StAxis]

Based on looking at where the inspiration for the games seems to have been coming from such as 2011 vs 2007 and 2012 vs 2006, as well as bridges from last years FTC game I believe that next years game will probably (and hopefully) have some combination of the following:

1. Ramps (FTC 2012 game)
2. Non circular game pieces of different sizes (FRC 2005 & FTC 2012)
3. FIRST carts (like the ones used in Lunacy and several games before that, been awhile since we've seen them)

I really hope it's something with lots of boxes or triangles, I really like the PVC idea too! As for the high visibility statements, maybe they're going to not have walls on the side or have some weird driver stations? Only kinect driven would be too hard for rookies I'd think, but whatever it is I'm sure it will be awesome, maybe they will combine co-op with minibots too so you could use them to score like in 2011 but on some kind of co-op task get ONE seeding point (two was too much...) and of course it would have to be something else other than climbing poles.

[rainbowdash]

I really hope one year, we'll have water games or something.
Make a robot that's like a dolphin, does tricks, has camera tracking to retrieve things underwater. Sounds like an idea for the 2050's lol.

ehem.. so field related games...
I once had the idea of laser tag bots after me and a group of my robotics teammates went laser- tagging.

The objective could be to get to the other side of the field and shoot down the opponent's base before the opponent does to your team's base.

the field could include obstacles like a laser wall that only robots could pass only with another robot (thus the robot requires speed and precision once both robots are past the laser wall). there could be coop points given to teams of different sides that go through the barrier together. another obstacle could be a noodle wall that will require a lot of strength to push through, but not as hard to get through as the laser wall... the robot will have to compromise strength and agility. In layman's terms, build a heavier, more fortified bot, your bot will be slower, but it will get through the mid- field barrier faster.

there should be a 5-10 second penalty on any bot that is shot. during those 5 seconds, that robot will not be able to shoot any other robot, but other robots from the opposing team will be allowed to shoot that robot.. etc.

..just a thought...

[Andrew Lawrence]

While I like using ideas from previous games, I like original ideas too (2010 FTW). I think a mixture of the two would make the perfect game, like this year's Rebound Rumble.

I'd like to see trailers come back again, but maybe not used in the way they were in 2009 (Maybe you need to score on your alliance partners? Maybe the bottom is hollow and the pieces go in, get scored by a sensor, and come out?).

I think a wide, open field like 2009 will be present next year. It's been 4 years since we've truly had a full, open, 27x54 foot field, and I think the openness will make driving interesting (especially since by next year most everyone who was around in 2009 would have graduated). That said, I've always wanted to see something like 2009 with traction. I also would like to see the return of descoring, but making sure it's not too powerful (like in 2003, when descoring was more valuable than scoring). I'd also like to see coop like this year come back in a way, but have it worth less.

Just some thoughts.

[Zebra_Fact_Man]

Whatever the game, I'm hoping next year we're allowed a little more contact AKA no restricted zones. Something where the robots get to push each other around a little bit more, where having a powerful transmission really pays off.

I'd also like to see a game where defense-specific robots are really important. So I'd go for either a football game (alliances take turns on offense like in 2006) where you have to transport a football from one side of the field to the other during the offense-specific time (you could even have field goals!), or a hockey/broomball game where each alliance has a goalie and you have to score on the other alliance (you could use the 2009 anti-traction floor to simulate ice and make the goalie zones carpet so the goalies have more traction/pushing ability).
In either of these games, I feel like there'd be alot more ties though.

I also feel like either of these games would be really fun to play, and you'd give the teams alot more of a chance for their robots to interact with each other.

[coalhot]

I'd like to see the return of the slick wheels/field surface. They sure made the 2009 competition quite interesting. You could play very effective defense. The only issue in 2009 was scoring, it was either all or nothing. Those of us with shooters had trouble.

I highly doubt a water game. The rumors have been flying for the past two years (more than that, has just been heating up the last two years), but if you look at the KOP, it is not equipped for anything needing to be submerged. Plus I have a feeling that not too many teams are acquainted with engineering underwater/partially water vehicles. This would make it very difficult for teams to make something competitive in a water environment.

I like the idea of a Smash Bros game. I think the sound effects were an interesting hint. It could also lend to the "open field" theory. We shall see!

[bearbot]

The game field is on Mars sorta like lunacy field and their craters as game pieces that can stack on scoring pods to gain points and stack box like object to build a wall and the end game in having 4 miniboat drag race down a track

[Grim Tuesday]

I'd like to see the return of the slick wheels/field surface. They sure made the 2009 competition quite interesting. You could play very effective defense. The only issue in 2009 was scoring, it was either all or nothing. Those of us with shooters had trouble.


You're a funny guy.

[Jenn Feathers]

water as a game piece

[Ravage457]

A stacking game sounds about right, cuz the last one was with tetras in 2005, and the kinect would work real well with this type of game

[dag0620]

*Get's on SoapBox*

I swear this thread shows up earlier and earlier each year.....

[DominickC]

*Get's on SoapBox*

I swear this thread shows up earlier and earlier each year.....

I don't see this as being an issue :yikes:

[TimSchley]

*Get's on SoapBox*

I swear this thread shows up earlier and earlier each year.....

Next year it'll start during build season.

[RMiller]

Next year it'll start during build season.

And the 2015 Game thread will start about this time next year.

[dag0620]

Next year it'll start during build season.

Now that is a scary thought :yikes: :p

[sand500]

so um, what do you think will be the 2014 game? maybe integration with android or google glasses.
I think a game where the alliance has to work together to assemble a structure would be good.

[lorem3k]

Call me a doubting Thomas, but I don't really think Google Glass is really going to take off.

[coalhot]

We should go back to the basics. 1992 game, tennis balls on a sand surface. T'would be fun!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-m1QBOxsfg&feature=relmfu


*totally wastes too much time on Andy Baker's youtube channel*

[lorem3k]

It would be pretty interesting to do a field with a non-uniform surface like sand or gravel... or water

[gyroscopeRaptor]

One item I'd like to see addressed is with the bridges. Don't get me wrong, the bridges were an incredible endgame. The problem I have is that the "cheap field" schematics that 98% of teams use in their practice spaces had bridges nowhere near the same properties as the official field bridges. I'm going to request and hope that the next field to use any sort of "dynamic" field elements have the cheap field versions be much closer to the real field's properties.

[lorem3k]

One item I'd like to see addressed is with the bridges. Don't get me wrong, the bridges were an incredible endgame. The problem I have is that the "cheap field" schematics that 98% of teams use in their practice spaces had bridges nowhere near the same properties as the official field bridges. I'm going to request and hope that the next field to use any sort of "dynamic" field elements have the cheap field versions be much closer to the real field's properties.
I agree with this. This difference kind of screwed us over for balancing, we had no troubles balancing the plywood bridge, but the heavy plastic ones at competition were a different story.

[EricH]

It would be pretty interesting to do a field with a non-uniform surface like sand or gravel...I'd say no comment... but to say "interesting" is a massive understatment.

Trust me on this--my senior design project is competing on regolith simulant at the end of the month. And I don't mean the FRP from 2009, I mean BP-1 lunar regolith simulant.

For motion, wheels with paddles attached. We've used treads in the past.

[PAR_WIG1350]

Next year it'll start during build season.

I thought the 2012 thread did start during the 2011 build season. Does anybody want to check?

[rainbowdash]

I really hope one year, we'll have water games or something.
Make a robot that's like a dolphin, does tricks, has camera tracking to retrieve things underwater. Sounds like an idea for the 2050's lol.

ehem.. so field related games...
I once had the idea of laser tag bots after me and a group of my robotics teammates went laser- tagging.

The objective could be to get to the other side of the field and shoot down the opponent's base before the opponent does to your team's base.

the field could include obstacles like a laser wall that only robots could pass only with another robot (thus the robot requires speed and precision once both robots are past the laser wall). there could be coop points given to teams of different sides that go through the barrier together. another obstacle could be a noodle wall that will require a lot of strength to push through, but not as hard to get through as the laser wall... the robot will have to compromise strength and agility. In layman's terms, build a heavier, more fortified bot, your bot will be slower, but it will get through the mid- field barrier faster.

there should be a 5-10 second penalty on any bot that is shot. during those 5 seconds, that robot will not be able to shoot any other robot, but other robots from the opposing team will be allowed to shoot that robot.. etc.

..just a thought...

Whatever the game, I'm hoping next year we're allowed a little more contact AKA no restricted zones. Something where the robots get to push each other around a little bit more, where having a powerful transmission really pays off.

I'd also like to see a game where defense-specific robots are really important. So I'd go for either a football game (alliances take turns on offense like in 2006) where you have to transport a football from one side of the field to the other during the offense-specific time (you could even have field goals!), or a hockey/broomball game where each alliance has a goalie and you have to score on the other alliance (you could use the 2009 anti-traction floor to simulate ice and make the goalie zones carpet so the goalies have more traction/pushing ability).
In either of these games, I feel like there'd be alot more ties though.

I also feel like either of these games would be really fun to play, and you'd give the teams alot more of a chance for their robots to interact with each other.


Rebuttal:
I already stated that water games prob won't be a reality until later in the future.

Next year, hopefully, will have a more open field. I agree with SuperNerd256...

The more open the field, the more interesting the game gets... the more intricate strategies.

[iPenguin]

I think it could have something that has to do with this years FTC game. Last years FTC had balancing, and this year had balancing.

Safety issue. I personally do NOT want to see giant, 120 pound robots that rise 20 feet or more into the air and have the potential to fall outside the field, potentially causing harm to the drivers/volunteers/spectators. As an FTAA on Franklin this year, I had to dodge two robots while trying to figure out why another one wasn't moving.

I like the more open field idea as well as the stacking red bots on blue bots and vice versa for co-op points idea. I'd like to see them take a page out of FLL, make it somewhat biology themed, and have Double Helix game pieces.

[Anupam Goli]

Let's get back to the basics.

Playground balls. mobile goals. large balls to cap goals. Stationary goals. End game bonus of placing all mobile goals into the home zone. Mash up of 2004 and 2002, and something no one has seen in a while.

[rocknthehawk]

Let's get back to the basics.

Playground balls. mobile goals. large balls to cap goals. Stationary goals. End game bonus of placing all mobile goals into the home zone. Mash up of 2004 and 2002, and something no one has seen in a while.


2004 was a fun spectator game. I enjoyed watching robots climb the bar, and seeing 190's bot hang from the start, and swing their massive arm back and forth. I personally enjoy human players having the ability to score, not just feed game pieces. (when was the last time you saw defense like this? http://youtu.be/Q5nnGGRi-94). I understand why FIRST took it away, but the robot on robot contact made for some intense action.

A return of tetras could be fun. I'm trying to imagine how the game could change, so it wasn't a simple replay of 2005. I really liked this years game, up until CMP this year, 2005 was a landslide favorite for me.

A return of tote bins would be miserable. Tupperware Tossdown was my least favorite game.

[sand500]

If it is sand, I know what we are gonna do
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/234/519476632_d86069b56d.jpg

[Pauline Tasci]

stacking game! a stacking water game

[Tom Ore]

2013 Game: Skee Ball

The game field has four giant skee ball tables. There will be one in each corner of the field – two for red and two for blue. The skee ball tables use maybe 5 or 6 inch diameter balls. In the center of the field is a ball pit which is initially empty. Above the ball pit is a ball bin which stores the balls at the start of the match. There will be 50 or 60 balls – half of them red and half blue. In autonomous mode, the robots deploy minibots into the empty ball pit. At the end of autonomous, the ball bin opens and all the balls fall into the ball pit. The minibots spend the entire match driving under the balls trying to find balls of the correct color and tossing them onto the field in the correct direction. The human players move the balls to a rail similar to Breakaway that rolls the balls back to the ball pit. For the endgame, there is some sort of mechanism that requires the two alliances to work together to move the balls back into the ball bin. The human players can toss balls directly into the ball bin during the endgame. The win is worth 9 points and the coopertition score is proportionate to how many balls get moved back to the ball bin (maybe 0, 3, 6, or 9.) The endgame helps field reset.

[Andrew Lawrence]

I'd really like to see another game where there are multiple ways of scoring (2008), or maybe even multiple ways of scoring with the same game piece (2006: in the hoop, or in the lower scoring area). Something that can bring back the niche robot. Sounds pretty interesting.

[maxweberh]

Correct me if I am wrong...
but i don't remember a game where in robot assembly was required. For example picking up a blue cube and a red cube, and putting them together inside the robot perimeter and then putting those somewhere. Teams could use the kinect to help put the pieces together and automate assembly. Kind of like Wall-E pushing the stuff inside of his body chamber and then creating the trash cube. That is what i hope is part of the game for next year.

[Sunshine]

WELL,

We've had soccer, basketball and car racing. Time for volleyball.

[Borobo]

I've got 2 suggestions
1) rectangular boxes about 1' high by 2' long by 1' wide that weight about 25 lbs. Robots have to pickup boxes and stack them in one of 2 sectors of the field,(which is flat), these being a protected area on you side of the field, and the other being anywhere else, where stacks can be dismantled by opponents. the scoring per stacked box is different for the sectors. possible endgame, there are 2 ramps, you get more points if you drive onto crates stacked next to the ramps, the scoring going something like 5x the number of crates high you are. ex. 3 feet high, 15 points per robot.
2) field filled with tiny balls, like the size of ping pong balls. mixed in, with something like a ratio of 20:1, are some other larger balls like racquette balls. at each end of the field is a stepped series of 3 platforms each perhaps 8 inches high and each with a bin on it. these correspond to 1, 2, or 3 points. the thing is, only the RB's actually score points. teams, therefore need to choose between dumping huge volumes of balls quickly and filling the bins inefficiently and dumping RB's only/mostly and more slowly filling the bins but scoring more points. I don't know what the endgame would be yet.

[lorem3k]

2013 Game: Skee Ball
I'm the man at Skee Ball - just ask anybody at your local Chuck-e-Cheese. I like this idea, but I think having a ball-feeding minibot that can choose the right color of balls (esp. if it's a Tetrix-based bot, which is what 2011 was originally supposed to be) is a bit much.
2) field filled with tiny balls, like the size of ping pong balls. mixed in, with something like a ratio of 20:1, are some other larger balls like racquette balls. at each end of the field is a stepped series of 3 platforms each perhaps 8 inches high and each with a bin on it. these correspond to 1, 2, or 3 points. the thing is, only the RB's actually score points. teams, therefore need to choose between dumping huge volumes of balls quickly and filling the bins inefficiently and dumping RB's only/mostly and more slowly filling the bins but scoring more points. I don't know what the endgame would be yet.
There would have to be some kind of penalty for scoring ping-pong balls, or else there wouldn't be any incentive to selectively score racquette balls.

[Borobo]

the penalty would be that the bins wouldn't be very big, so by just dumping, you would be lessening you ability to score later and sacrificing number of possible points for speed. I think you would see midrate teams who just picked up 200 balls at a time and dumped them and highrate teams who spent the match trolling for balls and separating them internally via software and light sensors and complicated conveyors, then dumping at the end. I also like it because it opens up a lot of defense strategies, like do you just hold like a 1000 balls so no one else can get them, do you block them from getting to the bins, do you specialize in getting balls out of bins, or do you just do the traditional push them around and annoy them defense.

[MrForbes]

The game field is on Mars sorta like lunacy field and their craters as game pieces that can stack on scoring pods to gain points and stack box like object to build a wall and the end game in having 4 miniboat drag race down a track

And the controls have a built in delay, so you need to have hybrid control (as was intended in the 2008 game Overdrive) where you give a "high level" command, and the robot executes it sort of autonomously. This will help alleviate the need for full time communication with the robots, too.

[theawesome1730]

I want to see a game where each of the 3 robots must perform a specific task in order to achieve the game's goals. Each robot can only be ONE of the specialized options. This is gonna make alliance matching and seeds nearly impossible though

[EricH]

I want to see a game where each of the 3 robots must perform a specific task in order to achieve the game's goals. Each robot can only be ONE of the specialized options. This is gonna make alliance matching and seeds nearly impossible though
2004 comes close.

You could herd the small balls around, (and pray that your alliance had a good human player). A few tried to catch and unload them straight from the drops.

You could hang from the bar. A half-dozen robots played bar defense as their entire game. Just about everybody had some sort of bar hanger.

You could play for the doubler balls. Most robots that did this, though, also went for the small balls.

At least one world champion did all three--internal ball hopper, doubler-grabbing arms, and a fast-winching hook for the bar.

And, as a strategy nightmare... doubler beats small, hanger beats doubler, small beats hanger.

[lorem3k]

the penalty would be that the bins wouldn't be very big, so by just dumping, you would be lessening you ability to score later and sacrificing number of possible points for speed. I think you would see midrate teams who just picked up 200 balls at a time and dumped them and highrate teams who spent the match trolling for balls and separating them internally via software and light sensors and complicated conveyors, then dumping at the end. I also like it because it opens up a lot of defense strategies, like do you just hold like a 1000 balls so no one else can get them, do you block them from getting to the bins, do you specialize in getting balls out of bins, or do you just do the traditional push them around and annoy them defense.
Actually, this could be overcome pretty easily by dumping the balls into a hopper/tank on the robot with ping-pong ball sized holes in the bottom to act as a sieve that only holds on to the larger balls, and then dumping the contents into the scoring bins.

[DampRobot]

Although many are looking to past FRC games in order to guess at next years game, I would suggest looking to past FTC games.

The trend started (as close as I can tell) in 2011. It was stated that the minibots were added to encourage cooperation and communication between FRC and FTC teams. We were supposed to use Tetrix components, although many teams ended up just machining their own components. In 2012, the middle of the field was remarkably similar to the FTC "Get Over It!" field (bridges, barrier). I would love to see something similar to the height bonus for the crates in FTC this year. It was the perfect combination of a crowd-pleasing spectacle and a challenge that required technical innovation.

For the main game peice, I'm hoping for Tetras like some other mentioned. The 2011-2007,2012-2006,2013-2005 trend might hold like some others are predicting. Stacks would be cool too. Although I doubt this will happen because we just had a throwing game, Frisbees and footballs would be cool game pieces.

[bduddy]

I think that we're very likely to (again) see a game that takes significant elements from previous FRC games. Last year took tube hanging directly from 2007, and this year was Aim High's shooting + the mandatory bi-yearly sports theme + the field from 2001. The GDC keeps talking about bringing older games back, partially or wholly, and I don't see them going away from that... Tetras have been oft-discussed, but how about those tube goals that were used in many older games?

EDIT: As EricH says, the field was from 2001, not 2002.

[StAxis]

The idea around the game could be something like FIRSTageddon, since we will have just lived through (hopefully) the "end of the world" just a few weeks before. Or it might be something with bad luck since it's 2013, how interesting would that be, a game designed around cards, with different kinds of game pieces like spades, clubs, diamonds, and hearts. Perhaps red alliance vs black alliance and if you were the clack alliance you could only use the spades and clubs and visa versa? That would be reaalllly fun, I WANT TO SEE THIS HAPPEN NOW :D:D:D

[EricH]

In 2012, the middle of the field was remarkably similar to the FTC "Get Over It!" field (bridges, barrier).
I would like to point you towards an even more similar field obstacle. Not, as one poster thinks, from 2002, which had no barriers on the field. From 2001, Diabolical Dynamics.

That barrier had, in essence, the floor barrier from 2012 with a rail some bit higher (I want to say about a foot and a half), with a single bridge in the middle. Unlike in 2012, however, the bridge did not self-level, though it could be balanced. The 4v0 game was to load small balls into goals, throw a couple large balls on top if you could, balance the goals on the bridge, and stick as many robots on the far end of the field as you could. And do it all as fast as possible. The faster you did it, the more your points were multiplied by.

Stacking items and height bonuses: I refer you to 2003 and 1999, respectively. You'll have to look at the FRC games; FTC hadn't been invented yet and the EDUBot was still in its infancy in 2003.

FTC is following FRC, not the other way around.

[iPenguin]

I would love to see something similar to the height bonus for the crates in FTC this year. It was the perfect combination of a crowd-pleasing spectacle and a challenge that required technical innovation.


Please see my earlier post. Main issue: safety

[AZNkommander]

I wouldn't mind seeing a game focusing on speed and scoring... Maybe something like hockey?

[Randomness]

I like a bunch of the ideas on this thread, so I combined most of them: varied game pieces/roles, open field, durable pieces, tetras, and an easily understandable game.

Here is my idea:
Have a variety of medium-sized PVC game elements - some a simple pipe with a cap on either end, some tetras, maybe some other weird shapes, with an average dimension of 2' x 2' x 2'. This would make it very difficult to manipulate each one with the same grabber, but also allow a simple box bot/snow plow (like the robot from the game animation) to score. Each of these elements needs to be brought onto your side of the field for points, similar to a capture-the-flag or Hungry Hungry Hippos. Last, PVC is durable and easy to find (although making tetras would be hard).

The endgame could revolve around stacking the PVC game pieces - give 5 points for each foot off the ground, if fully supported by other pieces and not a robot. In order to prevent a team from knocking over an intricate stack, there should be a protected zone large enough to fit a stack or two, but small enough that you couldn't pile all of the game elements in (points are still scored as long as the game piece is on your side of the field.) Stacking PVC elements on top of other elements, and not on a robot, would prevent dangerous 10+ ft-tall towers that could topple. Smaller towers would not be a major issue - a 2' PVC cube is not a significant safety hazard if elements are removed from the top down, and stacks will not tumble a significant distance out of the field - especially if the protected zone is in the middle of the field.

One problem is that announcing the score will take a while (although it does add a bit to the suspense)

[Savvy578]

The Hunger Games: FRC Edition. But in all seriousness I am assuming the return of an unusually shaped playing piece like the tetras. It would also be nice to see a flat field again.

[bduddy]

I wouldn't mind seeing a game focusing on speed and scoring... Maybe something like hockey?Did someone say "hockey"?

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1166651

</shameless self-promotion>

[NXTGeek]

I want it to be a "rock" wall climbing game- and less obvious references to previous challenges! Also rules that encourage strange forms of mobility.

[Libby K]

stacking game! a stacking water game

A stacking water game? Sounds a bit like a 'nailing jell-o to a tree' game...

[lorem3k]

A stacking water game? Sounds a bit like a 'nailing jell-o to a tree' game...
Hey... a Jello-based game would be great, a bit easier to contain than water due to its semi-solidness.

[bearbot]

Its that time again but im thinking MArs surface with crater element you hav to stack on top of each other OR using the tetra to form a pryrimid and then have a caterpult to shoot a ball at it Kinda like Angry Birds for the game but ANgry Alliances because you haveto keep build the pyrimid

[M_Bergman]

Here's my idea (haven't seen it before). Not so much of an overall idea, but rather a specific suggestion:

Have the field covered with, say, ping-pong balls. Well, something more durable, but soft so that robots aren't damaged. Have these balls be unrelated to scoring (or maybe a small point bonus for removing them to storage bins along the sides).

With this idea, robots would have to be specifically designed to maneuver through obstacles. I feel that this would make for an interesting break from the previous FRC fields, where all 'bots almost have to use a fairly standard wheel design. Also, of course, this might lead to an actual iteration of the intro videos' famous bulldozer-bot.

[Gregor]

Here's my idea (haven't seen it before). Not so much of an overall idea, but rather a specific suggestion:

Have the field covered with, say, ping-pong balls. Well, something more durable, but soft so that robots aren't damaged. Have these balls be unrelated to scoring (or maybe a small point bonus for removing them to storage bins along the sides).

With this idea, robots would have to be specifically designed to maneuver through obstacles. I feel that this would make for an interesting break from the previous FRC fields, where all 'bots almost have to use a fairly standard wheel design. Also, of course, this might lead to an actual iteration of the intro videos' famous bulldozer-bot.

Field reset volunteers everywhere are groaning at the thought of it. I was ref for FLL this year, and the little LEGO bacteria balls were annoying enough. Now multiply that by 1000

[Gigakaiser]

I think FIRST will keep games spectator-friendly like Rebound Rumble from now on. I doubt regolith or complicated scoring will return next year.

Hockey (without a slippery surface) does sound fun though

[lorem3k]

I think FIRST will keep games spectator-friendly like Rebound Rumble from now on. I doubt regolith or complicated scoring will return next year.

Hockey (without a slippery surface) does sound fun though
I think hockey without a slippery surface would be incredibly awkward unless some kind of air-hockey style system was used. I think the Lunacy field and wheels would be great for emulating a hockey game.

Also, if we got a hockey game, would we get hockey fights, FIRST style? ::safety::

[Dr. Shocker]

Also, if we got a hockey game, would we get hockey fights, FIRST style? ::safety::
GP fights? trying to see who can be the most helpful to the other?

[StAxis]

GP fights? trying to see who can be the most helpful to the other?

Are you trying to be helpful to my alliance partner!? *All alliance robots rush off the bench and go to help out*

[Walter Deitzler]

Hey... a Jello-based game would be great, a bit easier to contain than water due to its semi-solidness.

And the regional victors/ regional chairman's award winners could EAT the Jell-o after they won.

yum, Jell-O
:p

[lorem3k]

And the regional victors/ regional chairman's award winners could EAT the Jell-o after they won.
It could be kind of nasty from chain and transmission grease, and especially if someone's CIM started leaking Magic Smoke. And of course it would have that slightly sour hint of aluminium in it.
GP fights? trying to see who can be the most helpful to the other?
Hahaha. "He's trying to help us! Lemme at 'em!"

[Ekcrbe]

If anyone on the GDC ever sees this thread, they will make sure that tetras aren't used for the next 15 years, just to annoy all of you.

I think a game with a very low number of scoring pieces (like 2008), very open game piece control/transportation rules, and goals which are diagonal from each other (like 2010, but with one goal for each alliance on each side) would be exciting because it would facilitate cooperative defense by multiple members of an alliance to get the game pieces back and score with them.

[z_beeblebrox]

This year was a small number of scoring pieces, so maybe the will decide to have a lot in 2013. I think large numbers of some kind of non-ball game pieces could be interesting (underwater, of course).

[mwmac]

Two words: Frisbee Golf

[Tetraman]

Every year someone posts game piece trends to figure out what the next year's trend will be. If there is a common trend, it is this:

2012: Basketball (Sport)
2011: Scoring tubes (Nonsport)
2010: Soccer (Sport)
2009: Antigravity (Nonsport)
2008: Racing (Sport)
2007: Scoring tubes (Nonsport)
2006: Vauge Basketball (Sport)
2005: Tic Tac Toe (nonsport)
2004: Track&Field (Sport)
2003: Stack Attack (nonsport)

So if that rings true, then next year will be a non-sport, one of those abstract games with an abstract theme.


Truths:

1. Tubes will happen at least once every 4 year cycle. They are a great game piece that are easy to score and manipulate, easy to order a great deal of them and they ship deflated - so more space to hold them in shipping. Expect tubes to come again soon.

2. Zones, lanes, "areas" and "alliance specific goal locations" seem to be a common trend, however its been some time since alliances had to score in the same place (2007). This could be something that comes back.

3. The Name and Graphics of the challenge are becoming a very critical part of game design. Every part of the game, from what you call the game pieces to the name of the playing arena; from the logo to the volunteer shirts - everything is specifically detailed starting from the game design. You can not just formulate a simple problem for teams to solve anymore.

4. Rebound Rumble was designed a few years ago, however it was put on the back burner for a later date. This year's game is going to be totally new. This is speculation on my part, but I have a good feeling it is right based on the exit of Dave and Woodie from the GDC and the times the GDC started working.

5. Water Games, or games that include water-based (or water-filled) elements are always possible.

[Ekcrbe]

This year was a small number of scoring pieces, so maybe the will decide to have a lot in 2013. I think large numbers of some kind of non-ball game pieces could be interesting (underwater, of course).
By small i meant something like 4 or 6, because 18 was enough for every robot to the legal maximum, which didn't force any defense in order to acquire pieces.

[ChristopherSD]

I'd like a game that doesn't involve scoring zones being right next to each driver station. Also, do away with Coopertition, as well as game pieces that lack durability.

[Jenn Feathers]

Every year someone posts game piece trends to figure out what the next year's trend will be. If there is a common trend, it is this:

2012: Basketball (Sport)
2011: Scoring tubes (Nonsport)
2010: Soccer (Sport)
2009: Antigravity (Nonsport)
2008: Racing (Sport)
2007: Scoring tubes (Nonsport)
2006: Vauge Basketball (Sport)
2005: Tic Tac Toe (nonsport)
2004: Track&Field (Sport)
2003: Stack Attack (nonsport)

So if that rings true, then next year will be a non-sport, one of those abstract games with an abstract theme.

What about the games before these? This trend is alittle misleading without including all of the games.

[Nick Lawrence]

What about the games before these? This trend is alittle misleading without including all of the games.

These games are really more applicable than previous ones, as they're in the more 'modern-era' of FRC. Games previous are irrelevant to this argument.

This year's game will have few, large scoring elements, with an emphasis on doing it fast. Maybe the return of large pilates balls, but probably not. Those things were dangerous.

-Nick

[Zebra_Fact_Man]

...Those things were dangerous.

-Nick


I not saying you are wrong, but just in what ways was that year particularly MORE dangerous than any other year?
Interestingly enough, the only year where I have ever actually been damaged by a robot was while autonomous testing our 2011 robot. The robot took an unexpected turn and I had to swat the claw out of the way of an unsuspecting team member passing by.

[BigJ]

I not saying you are wrong, but just in what ways was that year particularly MORE dangerous than any other year?
Interestingly enough, the only year where I have ever actually been damaged by a robot was while autonomous testing our 2011 robot. The robot took an unexpected turn and I had to swat the claw out of the way of an unsuspecting team member passing by.

In my experience getting hit by that big of an object with any appreciable force while unaware for any reason is an easy way to lose your balance and fall on something (or even nothing assuming your build space has a hard floor).

[dlavery]

Truths:

1. Tubes will happen at least once every 4 year cycle. They are a great game piece that are easy to score and manipulate, easy to order a great deal of them and they ship deflated - so more space to hold them in shipping. Expect tubes to come again soon.

2. Zones, lanes, "areas" and "alliance specific goal locations" seem to be a common trend, however its been some time since alliances had to score in the same place (2007). This could be something that comes back.

3. The Name and Graphics of the challenge are becoming a very critical part of game design. Every part of the game, from what you call the game pieces to the name of the playing arena; from the logo to the volunteer shirts - everything is specifically detailed starting from the game design. You can not just formulate a simple problem for teams to solve anymore.

4. Rebound Rumble was designed a few years ago, however it was put on the back burner for a later date. This year's game is going to be totally new. This is speculation on my part, but I have a good feeling it is right based on the exit of Dave and Woodie from the GDC and the times the GDC started working.

5. Water Games, or games that include water-based (or water-filled) elements are always possible.

Have any of these truths been validated as true? :)

The 2013 game was completed a while ago. Preparations for the 2014 game have already started. To have an effect on future games, you will need to focus on what is going to happen in 2015.

-dave



.

[JVN]

Have any of these truths been validated as true? :)


Dave Lavery is from team 116. This is the 116th reply to the original post.
I don't know about the rest of you, but that's ALL the validation I need.

[Steven Donow]

Dave Lavery is from team 116. This is the 116th reply to the original post.
I don't know about the rest of you, but that's ALL the validation I need.

I noticed the exact same thing.

Dave mentioned 3 years. That means 3 game pieces. He said focus. Cameras focus. 2015 game will be played solely with cameras with operators behind a black curtain.

[hiyou102]

They should have another FIRST Frenzy. The would be cool.

[2185Bilal]

Sorry im pretty new to CD, would someone tell me how to post thing in CD. PLZ
Sorry but i really some help
:(

[Walter Deitzler]

Sorry im pretty new to CD, would someone tell me how to post thing in CD. PLZ
Sorry but i really some help
:(

Just log in and click "Post Replay", like you did to post this post...
Or of you need to start a thread, go to forums, find the appropriate forum, and click "start new thread"

There were threads labeled "please read before you post" that were given to you after your account was started. They contained all the needed information.

Hope this helps!

Now, about the game...

What about a game where you have to stack crates/buckets/tetras on other robots! Then the robots would have to go to a protected corner zone, and, at the end game, raise the crates/buckets/tetras to gain points!

[KrazyCarl92]

Every year someone posts game piece trends to figure out what the next year's trend will be. If there is a common trend, it is this:

2012: Basketball (Sport)
2011: Scoring tubes (Nonsport)
2010: Soccer (Sport)
2009: Antigravity (Nonsport)
2008: Racing (Sport)
2007: Scoring tubes (Nonsport)
2006: Vauge Basketball (Sport)
2005: Tic Tac Toe (nonsport)
2004: Track&Field (Sport)
2003: Stack Attack (nonsport)

So if that rings true, then next year will be a non-sport, one of those abstract games with an abstract theme.

Even more to the point, the trend seems to be alternating ball years and non-ball years:

2012: Balls
2011: Tubes
2010: Balls
2009: Moon Rocks (weren't really balls, but everyone treated them like balls)
2008: Balls
2007: Tubes
2006: Balls
2005: Tetras
2004: Balls
2003: Crates
2002: Balls
2001: Balls (Here's where they double up and the trend doesn't really work)
2000: Balls
1999: Floppy things
1998: Balls
1997: Tubes
1992-1996: Balls

Since 1996, there has only been one year which hasn't followed this trend (unless you consider 2009), and that game was in 2001, the oddest of them all with moving goals, 4 teams working together, and stopping the clock early by balancing the bridge.

I'd bet on a non-ball game piece in 2013, whatever it may be.

[lorem3k]

One thing I'd like to see in the future is a game that puts more emphasis on vision targets. We've always had them since we got the new control system, and most top-tier teams have usually used them, but it's never really been "required" to do well. It'd be great to get some teams who haven't bothered with it in the past to learn how to handle vision processing.

[bduddy]

One thing I'd like to see in the future is a game that puts more emphasis on vision targets. We've always had them since we got the new control system, and most top-tier teams have usually used them, but it's never really been "required" to do well. It'd be great to get some teams who haven't bothered with it in the past to learn how to handle vision processing.In the past it seemed like no matter how important or "easy" vision tracking was, most teams wouldn't be able to do it. It seems like the changes they've made lately have helped that, though... even at the (relatively weak overall) St. Louis Regional I saw most teams making at least some attempt at it. Maybe they can try something randomized again...

[Andrew Lawrence]

One thing I'd like to see in the future is a game that puts more emphasis on vision targets. We've always had them since we got the new control system, and most top-tier teams have usually used them, but it's never really been "required" to do well. It'd be great to get some teams who haven't bothered with it in the past to learn how to handle vision processing.

I think as vision targeting becomes more integrated into the game, and more teams learn how to do it, FIRST will start implementing new methods of play into the game. They've taught the culture to make robots, make/use some of the latest vision-targeting software, which engineers around the world are still playing with, and soon they'll try and teach us something new.

Unfortunately, I'm stating to think that "something new" is somehow connected with the Kinect. I think we'll be seeing it a lot in the future, but it's application in the games is still open for interpretation. It has more than 1 built in sensor, so maybe it will become a sensor hub for future FRC robots.

tl;dr: My prediction is that FIRST will introduce a new concept of play next year.

[avanboekel]

I anticipate that next year, there will be larger game pieces where handling the sheer mass or size of them will be a challenge. The last 4 years, we have had relatively small and or light game pieces.

2012 ball: less than a pound
2011 tube: less than a pound
2010 ball: less than a pound
2009 rock: less than a pound
2008 ball: heavy.

In short, if the game follows trends, it will be a
-non ball
-heavy game piece
-non sport game.

[bduddy]

I anticipate that next year, there will be larger game pieces where handling the sheer mass or size of them will be a challenge. The last 4 years, we have had relatively small and or light game pieces.

2012 ball: less than a pound
2011 tube: less than a pound
2010 ball: less than a pound
2009 rock: less than a pound
2008 ball: heavy.

In short, if the game follows trends, it will be a
-heavy game piece
That's not a trend. A trend would be saying that large game pieces have been used in:

2008 (trackballs)
2005 (tetras)
2004 (30" balls, for capping)
2003 (storage bins)
2001 (30" balls, for capping)
etc.

Not really much to base a prediction on...

[Nemo]

This post (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1167788&postcount=7) got me thinking about having two games played in every match. If each game was worth 2 QP, that could force interesting design decisions and game strategy decisions. For it to work, both games would need to require a relevant investment, both in terms of match time and robot capabilities.

Or the endgame could simply be worth 2 QP instead of 2 CP or xyz points. (forget about minibots - that would be awful with QP's) What if the 2009 Lunacy endgame awarded QP? If a supercell was worth 1 QP instead of 15 points, that might have been pretty interesting. That forces you to decide if it's worth the effort of doing the empty cell setup routine or if you need to focus all of your time on winning the match.

Other thoughts: what if the highest stack was worth a separate 2 QP in 2003? What if scoring the most balls was worth a separate 2 QP in 2002? That would have changed those games a lot.

[ZipTie3182]

This post (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1167788&postcount=7) got me thinking about having two games played in every match. If each game was worth 2 QP, that could force interesting design decisions and game strategy decisions. For it to work, both games would need to require a relevant investment, both in terms of match time and robot capabilities.

Or the endgame could simply be worth 2 QP instead of 2 CP or xyz points. (forget about minibots - that would be awful with QP's) What if the 2009 Lunacy endgame awarded QP? If a supercell was worth 1 QP instead of 15 points, that might have been pretty interesting. That forces you to decide if it's worth the effort of doing the empty cell setup routine or if you need to focus all of your time on winning the match.

Other thoughts: what if the highest stack was worth a separate 2 QP in 2003? What if scoring the most balls was worth a separate 2 QP in 2002? That would have changed those games a lot.

I think it's an interesting concept to have the "two games" in every match. I think this is what makes a game interesting since it causes design trade offs. It didn't as much as it could this year but it years like 2010 where you had the tunnel and the hanging bar. Most teams did not both hang and go under the tunnel. Or like in 2004 where they was a million ways to score.

I like this because it causes teams to come up with different designs unlike this year where all robots that scored pretty much looked the same. Design trade offs also make it more difficult for powerhouses to really do it all, or at least need their alliance partners a little more.

I think it's really important that Rookies be able to find their niche in a game, as well as allow for multiple veteran strategies. It's no fun if all robots do the same thing because then teams that don't have as much experiences (or resources) have a really hard time building a competitive robot.

And I know I'll probably get a lot of backlash for saying this, but I LIKED the Co-op points this year. It allowed my team to advance a little father than we would have otherwise, which definitely induced A LOT of inspiration afterwards. I've never seen many of the girls on my team so euphoric about engineering or robotics. It was a great thing for my team, and Co-op really achieved what FIRST meant it to, even if some very skilled robots got displaced from winning. :eek:

-Anna

[Ravage457]

I wonder if it gonna be another stacking game like in 2007, and a combination of previous games that we havent seen in a while

[hiyou102]

Water, stacking, FIRST Frenzy, anyone?

[Ekcrbe]

I wonder if it gonna be another stacking game like in 2007, and a combination of previous games that we havent seen in a while

2007 was a tube game, but 2003 and 2005 are the stacking games most often referred to.

[brennonbrimhall]

I think that FIRST is definitely on a trend towards games more accessible to the public, or that highlights the organization in some way. Personally, I'm hoping for hockey. I don't foresee Coopertition going away. My guess is that it will return again in some form.

In terms of game technology, I agree with everything that's been already been stated. I really think that next year, there will be even more of an incentive to use the Kinect.

Lastly, it seems to me that the bottom line for any game we get is how it impacts the FMS and other Volunteers.

[Savvy578]

My thought is that, next year, using the Kinect will give a bonus, either to the match score or rankings.

[brennonbrimhall]

My thought is that, next year, using the Kinect will give a bonus, either to the match score or rankings.

Or you could simply offer a greater Hybrid bonus to teams that do use the Kinect, especially if the game next year is relatively even between the Hybrid, Teleop, and Endgame periods.

Due to the outcry against the rankings this year, I would be incredibly surprised if the Kinect directly affected the rankings.

[Gregor]

Or you could simply offer a greater Hybrid bonus to teams that do use the Kinect, especially if the game next year is relatively even between the Hybrid, Teleop, and Endgame periods.

Due to the outcry against the rankings this year, I would be incredibly surprised if the Kinect directly affected the rankings.

Most of the "outcry" about the rankings this year were due to the Coopertition bridge though. The Kinect didn't have a noticeable effect on the rankings, as it was mostly ignored by teams.

[JJackson]

How about a game using tetras, giant exercise balls and rubber maid containers.

[Gregor]

How about a game using tetras, giant exercise balls and rubber maid containers.

Why don't they add Regolith, basketballs, and tubes while your at it? :D

[brennonbrimhall]

Most of the "outcry" about the rankings this year were due to the Coopertition bridge though. The Kinect didn't have a noticeable effect on the rankings, as it was mostly ignored by teams.

Correct; I was under the impression that you were saying that usage of the Kinect would be directly affecting the rankings.

[Ekcrbe]

Why don't they add Regolith, basketballs, and tubes while your at it? :D

And play it on a hexagonal field covered in corn.

[Gregor]

And play it on a hexagonal field covered in corn.

And how about randomly hosing the robots with water? :D

[JonathanZur1836]

I have a strong feeling about stacking, it hasn't been done in a while and it has been rather successful in past years. I don't think that its going to be that similar to Triple Play (2005), because first has been trying to make the games easier to watch and understand, this year being probably the easiest. Tetras on the other hand, especially the tic tac toe type element of scoring, was kind of confusing. I think that its going to be kind of like 2003, where points were awarded for the highest stack, and not for the sequence in which the pieces were stacked. I do NOT think that its going to be ball or tube related (anything rounded and squishy really), as that has been very popular lately. I think its going to be a 3D polygon of sorts, but the shape itself is anybody's guess. As for the clues that may crop up in speeches, articles, pictures, etc, I wouldn't worry about them that much. Most are not even intended as clues, and the ones that are are so subtle that you have to analyze every phrase released by first for any kind of reference to something game related.

[PAR_WIG1350]

And how about randomly hosing the robots with water? :D

The human players are in charge of operating the water cannons.

[gyroscopeRaptor]

A point bonus is NOT the right incentive to using Kinect. Instead, have hybrid be similar to 2006/2009 where you will be caught up in other robots or like 2004/2008 where game pieces and robots are placed semi randomly. Both situations would be enhanced by allowing for direct movement, or, at the very least, Kinect as a mode selector.

[brennonbrimhall]

A point bonus is NOT the right incentive to using Kinect. Instead, have hybrid be similar to 2006/2009 where you will be caught up in other robots or like 2004/2008 where game pieces and robots are placed semi randomly. Both situations would be enhanced by allowing for direct movement, or, at the very least, Kinect as a mode selector.

After seeing other teams use the Kinect, I'm curious to how to make it work not only during Hybrid, but also on board the robot itself. This whitepaper is really, really cool to me, but that may be because I'm not programmingly inclined. :D

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/papers/2692?

Replace the Axis Cameras with the Kinect? Hard, but I after reading the paper, I think it definitely will get you recognized.

[JRTaylord]

If next year's game is centered around stacking it could be some sort of derivative of jenga.

[Gregor]

If next year's game is centered around stacking it could be some sort of derivative of jenga.

Oh now that might be fun :D

[Boe]

The human players are in charge of operating the water cannons.

I'm officially my teams human player next year :D

[torihoelscher]

Truths:

1. Tubes will happen at least once every 4 year cycle. They are a great game piece that are easy to score and manipulate, easy to order a great deal of them and they ship deflated - so more space to hold them in shipping. Expect tubes to come again soon.



They are also great to make skirts out of them. I would know...I am making 6 or 7 of them. (Of course all old tubes that have holes, tears, and etc. No new ones! Recycle!!! :) :) :) )

[Ekcrbe]

What about immovable on-field structures? (This does not include those attached to the alliance walls) There have been:

2012: Bump and Bridges
2011: Minibot Poles
2010: Bumps, Tunnels, and Overhead Bars
2009: Open
2008: Dividing Wall and Overhead Racks
2007: Scoring Tower
2006: Open
2005: Goals
2004: Stationary Goals, Steps and Bar
2003: Enourmous Ramp and Platform
2002: Open
Sorry for the poor terminology.

I think we might be due for an open field.
Other trends (as already mentioned) include non-ball pieces and a non-sport theme.

[Jenn Feathers]

The human players are in charge of operating the water cannons.

Alright!! :D

[PAR_WIG1350]

What about immovable on-field structures? (This does not include those attached to the alliance walls) There have been:

2012: Bump and Bridges
2011: Minibot Poles
2010: Bumps, Tunnels, and Overhead Bars
2009: Open
2008: Dividing Wall and Overhead Racks
2007: Scoring Tower
2006: Open
2005: Goals
2004: Stationary Goals, Steps and Bar
2003: Enourmous Ramp and Platform
2002: Open
Sorry for the poor terminology.

I think we might be due for an open field.
Other trends (as already mentioned) include non-ball pieces and a non-sport theme.

2006 had ramps and 2009 had rigolith, which was flat, but it was an immobile field element, and depending on your perspective, it could even be called a structure.

[Ekcrbe]

2006 had ramps and 2009 had rigolith, which was flat, but it was an immobile field element, and depending on your perspective, it could even be called a structure.

I know 2006 had ramps but they were at the end of the field, not out in the open.

It's a small stretch.

[Ninja_Bait]

Has anyone said crates yet? I think crates.

[jon-s]

It would be pretty interesting to do a field with a non-uniform surface like sand or gravel... or water

How about a surface with lots of bumps (may be too hard to implement) or obstacles (like the minibot pole bases)?

[sebflippers]

As a programmer I would love to see more autonomous time next game. Maybe 30 seconds?

[brennonbrimhall]

How about a surface with lots of bumps (may be too hard to implement) or obstacles (like the minibot pole bases)?

I think more of an open field would be really great – the perfect course for the most agile, most maneuverable, and most drivable robot is what I'm hoping for.

As a programmer I would love to see more autonomous time next game. Maybe 30 seconds?

That's true. Maybe a little more...maybe even 100% autonomous! :ahh: Who's with me? :D

Back to reality, it would be really cool to have a longer autonomous if we continued the point distribution of this year, where autonomous, teleop, and the endgame really were worth equal points. That's one aspect of the game this year that I would definitely like to keep.

[Tristan Lall]

That's true. Maybe a little more...maybe even 100% autonomous! :ahh: Who's with me? :D
I think you're alone on that one. I'd estimate 5% of the teams could pull that off now, 15% could figure it out during a build season, and the other 80% would fail.

One thing that might not be awful (in the right game) is the option for teams to select the duration of their autonomy, in exchange for points or multipliers on their scoring during the autonomous period.1 You could have them pre-select the duration, and/or have a button (like the e-stop, but not as conspicuous) that switches control back to the driver (or even back to autonomous thereafter).

1 This probably would work best in a game where individual robots' scoring can be distinguished somehow. Maybe a region of the field where only autonomous robots can go; maybe individualized goals or scoring objects.

[jon-s]

As a programmer I would love to see more autonomous time next game. Maybe 30 seconds?

the short autonomous period is the one thing I like less about frc than fll (fully autonomous). on the other hand, it would be a big game-changer.

[Andrew Lawrence]

I think style points would be an interesting addition to any game. If you can complete an in-game task in a unique way, you should get points (or maybe an award given to the team with the most in-competition points). Examples of such are special triple balancers such as Robonauts and Children of the Swamp. Or the teams that hung from the poles in 2010 (Cheesy Poofs, Simbotics, etc).

tl;dr: I think points should be awarded to a team that most uniquely and effectively pulls of a given task of the game.

[avanboekel]

I think that 15 seconds is the perfect time for autonomous. It's just enough time for teams to do some really cool things with it (2-3 tubes last year, tipping the bridge this year). Any longer would make it less interesting for the crowd to watch.

[Walter Deitzler]

I think that 15 seconds is the perfect time for autonomous. It's just enough time for teams to do some really cool things with it (2-3 tubes last year, tipping the bridge this year). Any longer would make it less interesting for the crowd to watch.

What if there was more to do in Autonomous. Instead of one task to be performed, there were many possible tasks? This would make autonomous pretty interesting and fun to watch.

[Robogineer1649]

I want First to add multiple aspects to the game like FTC games because they have many different ways of scoring or winning a match in FRC it is defense or offense. This year we only had two ways to score points while FTC had three or four different ways to score points.

[Siri]

What if there was more to do in Autonomous. Instead of one task to be performed, there were many possible tasks? This would make autonomous pretty interesting and fun to watch.Except that most of the teams now cannot make it interesting or fun to watch. (Remember, there are 2,343 teams in FRC this year...how many autonomous modes make you go "wow"?)

Most teams struggle with the basics now--just look at the Hybrid OPRs. FRC is primarily teleop because autonomous--especially fully autonomous--programming at this level just doesn't look as interesting or work as well. FLL isn't an interactive head-to-head sport; FRC is (I think because, well, it's high school).


I'd appreciate more ways to score as well, though I think the reason FRC has shied away from it is to make the games more spectator-friendly. How many sports have 3-4 ways to score?

[Ekcrbe]

Except that most of the teams now cannot make it interesting or fun to watch. (Remember, there are 2,343 teams in FRC this year...how many autonomous modes make you go "wow"?)

Most teams struggle with the basics now--just look at the Hybrid OPRs. FRC is primarily teleop because autonomous--especially fully autonomous--programming at this level just doesn't look as interesting or work as well. FLL isn't an interactive head-to-head sport; FRC is (I think because, well, it's high school).


I'd appreciate more ways to score as well, though I think the reason FRC has shied away from it is to make the games more spectator-friendly. How many sports have 3-4 ways to score?
Well, football does. It's on its own island in that respect, however.

[lorem3k]

As a programmer I would love to see more autonomous time next game. Maybe 30 seconds?
I'd like to see a longer autonomous period as well. The longer the autonomous time is, the more variables there are that need to be accounted for, which would help programmers learn about some of the challenges faced in "real-world" situations like automated assembly lines.

[jon-s]

FLL isn't an interactive head-to-head sport; FRC is (I think because, well, it's high school).

FRC is a head to head competition not so much because it's for highschool, as that all the robots are in one large field (like most team oriented sports) and are thus able to interfere/aid one another. It would be drastically more difficult (many programmers already struggle with the current autonomous) if the whole FRC game was autonomous.

FLL can work easily as a (virtually) autonomous competition since the robots can only ever interact in one mission/task, which is either a race to activate/collect an object, or which will give both teams points. The robots are in otherwise entirely isolated fields.

[Siri]

FRC is a head to head competition not so much because it's for highschool, as that all the robots are in one large field (like most team oriented sports) and are thus able to interfere/aid one another. It would be drastically more difficult (many programmers already struggle with the current autonomous) if the whole FRC game was autonomous.

FLL can work easily as a (virtually) autonomous competition since the robots can only ever interact in one mission/task, which is either a race to activate/collect an object, or which will give both teams points. The robots are in otherwise entirely isolated fields.Of course, yes. At the manifest level, (virtual) autonomous works because FLL robots compete individually, whereas FRC work many at once. But can't be the root cause--FIRST themselves decided those structures.

I suspect (with no evidence besides knowing elementary & high school students) that the main reason FIRST made the decision to have multiple FRC robots on one large field is because, well, high schoolers like head-to-head sports. (The direct competition adding qualities seen in most of their...competing...interests in a way most elementary schoolers are not yet as motivated towards.) And as we've agreed, programming at this level just doesn't work as well--for anyone, but certainly for high schoolers.

Well, football does. It's on its own island in that respect, however.Oh :o Ok. I thought it was like two. (The running thing and the kicking thing, yeah?) Maybe that sort of supports FIRST simplifying its rules for quasi-spectators. Lucky football doesn't have to rely on its own quasi-spectators like me!

[EricH]

Oh :o Ok. I thought it was like two. (The running thing and the kicking thing, yeah?) Maybe that sort of supports FIRST simplifying its rules for quasi-spectators. Lucky football doesn't have to rely on its own quasi-spectators like me!Actually...

-You can get the football into your opponent's end zone (6 points).
--You can then either kick it through the uprights for one point or put it in the end zone again (1 and 2 points respectively).
-You can kick a field goal (3 points).
-You can bring your opponents down in their end zone with the football after they've crossed the plane of the goal line going towards the field (or they send the ball out the back of the end zone), also known as a safety (2 points+ possession of the ball).

That's 5 ways to score, two of which are repeats of others for fewer points under certain circumstances.


On to other things like separated fields... Not gonna happen. I've seen how it looks when FRC-sized robots are competing FLL style, admittedly for a longer match on a harder task. Spectator-friendly, not so much (that's where you need TV-type coverage to fill in gaps or what have you).

[KevinGoneNuts]

Okay so from looking at past games and history here is what I assume the 2013 game will be like.

Stacking will be involved and same with hanging. When I say hanging, I don't mean like 2010, I mean like 2004 when you have to hang off a bar like that.

I also image getting around the field quickly will be essential for a successful robot.

I have a feeling there will be some height restriction. Basically I'm imagine a mixture of 2010, 2003, and 2004. 2010 with something like the tunnel, 2003 with the stacking, and 2004 with the high-bar. Basically stacking will be hard with an obstacle about 3-4 feet tall you have to drive under. Designing a stacking robot with hanging capabilities and a height restriction/obstacle will prove difficult, but fun!

Thoughts?

[EricH]

I have a feeling there will be some height restriction. Basically I'm imagine a mixture of 2010, 2003, and 2004. 2010 with something like the tunnel, 2003 with the stacking, and 2004 with the high-bar. Basically stacking will be hard with an obstacle about 3-4 feet tall you have to drive under. Designing a stacking robot with hanging capabilities and a height restriction/obstacle will prove difficult, but fun!

Thoughts?
You mean like 2000, but with stacking objects instead of filling troughs? That could be highly entertaining. And in informal CD polling, 2000 is one of the best-liked games, right up there with 2004, 2006, and 2010 (and possibly 2012).

[OliviaG]

I have a feeling their going to use crates in the 2013 game, and maybe inner tubes, because 2010 was using soccer balls, then 2011 was inner tubes, and this year was basketballs, so it kind of looks like a pattern. But I would like to see them do something different from the past games, well they do but its either balls or inner tubes, I hope they use crates though.

[Gregor]

I would like to see something similar to 2005 where the robots were disabled when the human player loaded the robot. However I would also like to see some in-game importance to the human player that directly or indirectly effects the store (i.e. 2012/2011), but not game changing (i.e. 2009/2004), or menial (i.e. 2010).

[EricH]

I would like to see something similar to 2005 where the robots were disabled when the human player loaded the robot. However I would also like to see some in-game importance to the human player that directly or indirectly effects the store (i.e. 2012/2011), but not game changing (i.e. 2009/2004), or menial (i.e. 2010).
2003's Human Player mode would fit it quite well, I think.

For those that don't know that game, the HP's actually played on the field. That's right, the first 15 seconds of each match were taken up by the 4 HPs each running 4 bins, marked with retro-reflective tape in addition to normal markings, onto the field, and then going back through the gates and standing on pressure pads. When all 4 were on the pads and the gates closed, the normal 2:15 match started, and the HPs retreated behind the glass with their drive teams. Then the robots started targeting the stacks... What do you expect from a game called "Stack Attack"?

[Chris Fultz]

I still thnk water game - 20 feet of pool noodle is enough to float a 120 pound robot.....so they are bumpers on the land portion and floats on the water portion.

[Gregor]

I still thnk water game - 20 feet of pool noodle is enough to float a 120 pound robot.....so they are bumpers on the land portion and floats on the water portion.

oh please.

[sithmonkey13]

I do not believe we will have to have our robots hang off a bar, as that was the goal in 2010, and the rookies (who were Freshman) in 2010 will now be Seniors and still on teams. From my understanding, FIRST usually only reuses some (of the major) elements at least every 4 years, so that students are not used to challenge.

Case in Point: use of inner tubes in 2007, use of inner tubes in 2011 when all students from that game were gone.

[Gregor]

I do not believe we will have to have our robots hang off a bar, as that was the goal in 2010, and the rookies (who were Freshman) in 2010 will now be Seniors and still on teams. From my understanding, FIRST usually only reuses some (of the major) elements at least every 4 years, so that students are not used to challenge.

Case in Point: use of inner tubes in 2007, use of inner tubes in 2011 when all students from that game were gone.

2006 and 2009 were very similar in terms of robot specs. Intake with (maybe a hopper and) a shooter.

[Banderoonies]

I'd like to see something original. Maybe large scales and various weights around the arena. As the weights picked up by the Bots and carried to the scales it rises a water level in a tube or something like that.

[Gregor]

I'd like to see something original. Maybe large scales and various weights around the arena. As the weights picked up by the Bots and carried to the scales it rises a water level in a tube or something like that.

inb4cries of a water game

[JosephC]

Eric and I actually came up with a game that the GDC can use for a water game. Which is more then I can say for anyone else.

Main Game: There are several lunacy like goal weighted down on the bottom of a pool. 1 or more robots on a 3 robot alliance must go underwater to pick up at least one of the goals. the remaining robot(s) must score balls filled with a substance less dense then water so they float. each ball scored would be X amount of points, they must remain in the basket until the buzzer to be counted.

End Game: X points are awarded per ball to any alliance that can then take their basket(s) and set them upside down on the bottom of the pool.

Alternate End Game: X points are awarded to each Robot that hangs on a bar(s) located in the middle of the field. Bars are X distance from the water. Robots must be completed out of the water to count.

I haven't thought up an autonomous yet. Ideas?

[EricH]

Eric and I actually came up with a game that the GDC can use for a water game. Which is more then I can say for anyone else.
I've cut out most of the post due to length, but I must ask one question: How deep is the pool? 3"? 3'? 8'? And how big of an area will it cover? Think very carefully about all the implications before you answer.



The reason is this: You have to move the entire pool into and out of the venue. (Unless there's one already there, which I highly doubt.) You also have to avoid damaging stuff that's already there. And there are other things that I could go into.

tl;dr: There's a reason nobody's seriously proposing a water game.

[JosephC]

I've cut out most of the post due to length, but I must ask one question: How deep is the pool? 3"? 3'? 8'? And how big of an area will it cover? Think very carefully about all the implications before you answer.

The reason is this: You have to move the entire pool into and out of the venue. (Unless there's one already there, which I highly doubt.)

Answer 1: Average swimming pool size I suppose.

Answer 2: I personally believe that First is slowly switching to venues to have pools. In Michigan this year our newest district competition was at Northville. Northville has a swimming pool, the previous venue did not. And Saint Louis does have a river...

[EricH]

Answer 1: Average swimming pool size I suppose.

Answer 2: I personally believe that First is slowly switching to venues to have pools. In Michigan this year our newest district competition was at Northville. Northville has a swimming pool, the previous venue did not. And Saint Louis does have a river...
I think that switching to venues that happen to have pools is a coincidence. FWIW, most high schools in the U.S. would have a pool (or have one nearby), but would also be cheaper to put a FRC event in than a sports arena. With FRC moving to more events for less money, it just makes sense to go to cheaper venues. Whether said cheaper venues have a pool or not at that point is a non-issue--it just turns out that way or not.

But here's the kicker: if the pool is in the Midwest, it's going to be either indoors or empty during competition, something about winter and pools not being filled during winter if outdoors. If the pool is in the South or Southwest, there's at least a 50% chance if not much higher that it'll be outdoors! That introduces a whole new dimension to the game, known as weather, which in some areas of the country could result in everybody watching getting soaked by rain or heavily sunburned. Plus you get varying lighting conditions, debris "on" the field, you get the picture. And oh, yeah, throw in some rather annoyed swim teams because there went their practice space for a week (gotta set up, gotta remove all debris afterwards, and don't forget to check all the chemical levels).

Also, in 2008 the Los Angeles regional shared a venue with a "pool". It should be noted, however, that the venue was double-booked that weekend. (And there were some not-too-happy teams due to the resulting crowded pits.) The following year, the regional moved to across the street from a harbor. No water game yet...

[JosephC]

It's just a joke of course. To feed the "Water Game" hype.

However, to deal with the weather, just put a tent up over the pool. We just played at IGVC this weekend in 90 degree weather.

[EricH]

It's just a joke of course. To feed the "Water Game" hype.

However, to deal with the weather, just put a tent up over the pool. We just played at IGVC this weekend in 90 degree weather.
I have to say, a tent over the pool might help... but it depends on the type. Also see "Epcot parking lot pits" and "It comes in anyway" for an enclosed or a popup, respectively.

[JosephC]

I have to say, a tent over the pool might help... but it depends on the type. Also see "Epcot parking lot pits" and "It comes in anyway" for an enclosed or a popup, respectively.

We actually managed to fit 25 team's pits under a enclosed tent with the field. And that was with the other 1/2 being used by Robofest.

[DampRobot]

And oh, yeah, throw in some rather annoyed swim teams because there went their practice space for a week (gotta set up, gotta remove all debris afterwards, and don't forget to check all the chemical levels).

After all these years thinking that a water game would be a boon for a swimmer, I just realized that it would involve kicking me out of my pool for long periods of time! I suppose build season does this anyway...

There are many weird sports that have yet to be emulated by an FRC game, but Swimming/Water Polo always seems to come up more than the rest in 20xx game threads. Why don't equally improbable sports like rock climbing or dirt biking, for example, get the attention that the mythical "water game" always seems to?

[JosephC]

After all these years thinking that a water game would be a boon for a swimmer, I just realized that it would involve kicking me out of my pool for long periods of time! I suppose build season does this anyway...

There are many weird sports that have yet to be emulated by an FRC game, but Swimming/Water Polo always seems to come up more than the rest in 20xx game threads. Why don't equally improbable sports like rock climbing or dirt biking, for example, get the attention that the mythical "water game" always seems to?

They might actually happen. It would remove the "mystical" part.

[Ekcrbe]

2006 and 2009 were very similar in terms of robot specs. Intake with (maybe a hopper and) a shooter.

But scoring those balls, driving, and the endgame were drastically different. The 2009 challenge was very heavy on being able to drive effectively compared to other years.

[Ekcrbe]

Eric and I actually came up with a game that the GDC can use for a water game. Which is more then I can say for anyone else.

Main Game: There are several lunacy like goal weighted down on the bottom of a pool. 1 or more robots on a 3 robot alliance must go underwater to pick up at least one of the goals. the remaining robot(s) must score balls filled with a substance less dense then water so they float. each ball scored would be X amount of points, they must remain in the basket until the buzzer to be counted.

End Game: X points are awarded per ball to any alliance that can then take their basket(s) and set them upside down on the bottom of the pool.

Alternate End Game: X points are awarded to each Robot that hangs on a bar(s) located in the middle of the field. Bars are X distance from the water. Robots must be completed out of the water to count.

I haven't thought up an autonomous yet. Ideas?

A. It was a thought we joked around with at lunch after a demo one day, not something we actually expect to happen.

B. SPELL MY NAME RIGHT! I'm on your team.

[EricH]

We actually managed to fit 25 team's pits under a enclosed tent with the field. And that was with the other 1/2 being used by Robofest.
Not bad. I just remember in Florida a few weeks back, 55 robot teams (college level) in an enclosed tent. They fit with plenty of space, but the air conditioning needed help, though it was better than outside. (The field, for other reasons, was in a different enclosed tent. That A/C still needed help, but not because of number of people--everyone in that tent was in a "bunny suit". See my avatar if you don't know what one is.)


Yeah, I think water game just gets too much attention. So, I say we try for a curling-based or cricket-based game...

[Gregor]

So, I say we try for a curling-based (snip) game

Sounds like regolith :mad:

[Gregor]

Due to recent comm issues, I think we will use wired connection next year.

The job of the human player will be to suspend from the ceiling and hold the cable.

Any takers?

:D

[JosephC]

Due to recent comm issues, I think we will use wired connection next year.

The job of the human player will be to suspend from the ceiling and hold the cable.

Any takers?

:D

Only if I get a full harnness :rolleyes:

[lucasking94]

Since FIRST robotics has conquered tubes (2011) and balls (2012) it would only seem logical to use something like a frisbee in 2013 or another very different object.

[Anupam Goli]

Ooh Ooh! We should so see something with stacking bins. Stacking bins filled with Hexagonal wire mesh game pieces. And playground balls. Bring all of them back!

[Wayne TenBrink]

I would like to see a game with hollow cylinders. For example, a 24" long section of 6" PVC drain pipe, etc. Length, diameter, material, and weight could be whatever works for the game. There could even be multiple size game pieces.

There are several ways to pick up a cylinder, so we would see a variety of new and reconfigured manipulator concepts. Orienting the manipulator/chassis to pick up a cylinder and then reorienting the game piece to release it for scoring would require some fresh thinking. Multi-piece handling would be even more ambitious.

The game could reward the ability to control and orient the game piece when released - lowest points for pushing them into a low goal, more for depositing them randomly in an elevated goal, more points still for stacking them like logs, even more for hanging them on pegs, etc.

[AlecMataloni]

I would like to see a game with hollow cylinders. For example, a 24" long section of 6" PVC drain pipe, etc. Length, diameter, material, and weight could be whatever works for the game. There could even be multiple size game pieces.

There are several ways to pick up a cylinder, so we would see a variety of new and reconfigured manipulator concepts. Orienting the manipulator/chassis to pick up a cylinder and then reorienting the game piece to release it for scoring would require some fresh thinking. Multi-piece handling would be even more ambitious.

The game could reward the ability to control and orient the game piece when released - lowest points for pushing them into a low goal, more for depositing them randomly in an elevated goal, more points still for stacking them like logs, even more for hanging them on pegs, etc.

Using PVC pipe as a game piece has already been done by FTC in 2010 with "Get Over It" and I have to say that the execution was particularly bad. Few teams could actually pick up and score the game pieces. I remember being in the division near the FTC field while playing Logomotion. Watching those FTC elims matches was painful .

Not saying that FIRST can't do it right, but I'm just sharing my experiences.

[rcmolloy]

Since rehashes of old games are in the agenda for the last time next year, I am believeing to expect that we will see a 2005/2004 where tetras will be the main scoring element having 3 scoring locations. Two at the ends of the fields in the corner/middle in between driver stations and one in the middle of the field on each side touching the wall. In between these two scoring areas, you now have a bar similar to 2004 where you can hang from for extra points. Hanging from another robot would be more points as well.

That's the most likely scenairo I can see being used now.

[ttldomination]

Using PVC pipe as a game piece has already been done by FTC in 2010 with "Get Over It" and I have to say that the execution was particularly bad. Few teams could actually pick up and score the game pieces. I remember being in the division near the FTC field while playing Logomotion. Watching those FTC elims matches was painful .

Not saying that FIRST can't do it right, but I'm just sharing my experiences.

From my experience in FTC, this speaks more to the kits rather than the game. I'm sure if something similar was set up in FRC, it wouldn't be half as bad.

Where's the game hint? It should be around here somewhere...

No, but really, I feel like the veterans are getting bored, to a certain degree. It'll be interesting to find a game in which the veterans lack experience, the rookies can potentially play focused roles, and people can still easily understand what's going on.

Irregularly shaped objects seems about right on this note, as it allows teams to second guess their rollers/intakes and step back from the board.

- Sunny G.

[Jay O'Donnell]

Since FIRST robotics has conquered tubes (2011) and balls (2012) it would only seem logical to use something like a frisbee in 2013 or another very different object.

I've actually been thinking about a frisbee game (actually I designed one as part of an English essay) and i think it would be very interesting. I feel like getting a robot to throw a frisbee would be inredibly difficult. Whatever the game is next year it'll sure be fun!

[Wayne TenBrink]

... I feel like the veterans are getting bored, to a certain degree. It'll be interesting to find a game in which the veterans lack experience, the rookies can potentially play focused roles, and people can still easily understand what's going on.

Irregularly shaped objects seems about right on this note, as it allows teams to second guess their rollers/intakes and step back from the board.

- Sunny G.

Not that our team has mastered rollerclaw or anything, but it would be great if the game piece manipulator required/rewarded teams that were able to think outside of the roller box. What was the last game piece that wasn't best handled with some sort of roller/roller claw? Triple Play in 2005?

[EricH]

Not that our team has mastered rollerclaw or anything, but it would be great if the game piece manipulator required/rewarded teams that were able to think outside of the roller box. What was the last game piece that wasn't best handled with some sort of roller/roller claw? Triple Play in 2005?
Yep, 2005. The best handling device for the tetras tended to be a stick of some form with a crossbar, at least if placing them one by one was your goal.

The one before that was 2003's bins, which a roller would work very well for.

Then you have to go back to 1999's floppies... those would be rather tough with a roller.

I'm also leaving out the large exercise balls used in several years before 2005, and the mobile goals that fall into the same category, simply because on the balls you can use a roller, though a claw may be a better option, and on the goals there are too many types to go through good handling options.

[PayneTrain]

I think FIRST really wants to develop games that are easy to understand and follow through simple rules, obvious scoring methods and foul calls, and live score counts. It's very important to engage people not in the competition but still attending them.

That being said, there are only two games in the modern era that have come close to those goals, but I expect them to carry those principles in game design with them in the future just like colored bumpers and 120 pound limits. I can't really predict what will come in 2013, but I expect you'll get a weird game piece that no one has dealt with in FRC before, and it will be offense-driven.

[Dustin Shadbolt]

I think FIRST really wants to develop games that are easy to understand and follow through simple rules, obvious scoring methods and foul calls, and live score counts. It's very important to engage people not in the competition but still attending them.

That being said, there are only two games in the modern era that have come close to those goals, but I expect them to carry those principles in game design with them in the future just like colored bumpers and 120 pound limits. I can't really predict what will come in 2013, but I expect you'll get a weird game piece that no one has dealt with in FRC before, and it will be offense-driven.

I really hope they do develop games that are easy to relate guests with, but also provide the kids the challenge they want. I truly loved Breakaway. It was a game I could explain to someone in less than a minute and they could completely understand everything. It was also a challenge for the drivers/teams. I also agree it's time for a stacking game! cough underwaterstacking cough. ;)

[KevinGoneNuts]

Does anyone know if in 2003, anyone actually built a stacking bot? I'm looking at video from stack attack and they're all pretty much small bots designed to just knock the wall to their side which would inevitably win the game.

I also want to know if there were any prohibited zones that the other alliance We're not able to enter without getting penalized?

I feel like if they wanted to encourage stacking and not hording in the 2013 game then they would have to have some type of stacking zone that other alliances were unable to touch until some point in the match.

[Dchandler]

Since it has been awhile since I read the posts in this thread, I hope that I'm not repeating anything.

The possibility of stacking game seems highly probable either this year or maybe the next. If people's assumptions are true, I'm interested in seeing on how FIRST plans to make it viewer-friendly like Rebound Rumble. Robot Jenga maybe? I wouldn't mind too much of a reinvention of Triple Play. The matches I watched online didn't seem too bad and the game was easy to follow.

Also, with the minibots being made from FTC parts and the bridges this year being taken from Get Over It!, I wonder if the GDC will add another FTC element into 2013 also. Bowling ballsmaybr? Why stop there drivetrains made from Legos.

I'm more interested in the end game next year. It's going to be hard topping the excitement of a split-second triple balance.

[Gregor]

I also want to know if there were any prohibited zones that the other alliance We're not able to enter without getting penalized?


The manual to the 2003 game (and any other game between 2002 and 2012) can be found here (http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/archived-game-documentation-and-event-results)

[EricH]

Does anyone know if in 2003, anyone actually built a stacking bot? I'm looking at video from stack attack and they're all pretty much small bots designed to just knock the wall to their side which would inevitably win the game.

YES! There were a number of stacking robots--217 being a notable member of that group for their ability to protect the stack they were building. However, the way the game ended up being played was, quite simply, knock the wall to your scoring area in automode, take out the stacks the humans left in your area during the human player mode, and park on the top of the ramp. See 60, 68, 234, 980.

330 built a stacking robot that could theoretically handle an infinitely high stack (though it would be rather precarious--in practice, our method could get about 8 before a collapse; in competition, we never got more than about 2 before someone knocked the stack over). However, due to the way the game actually played, the stacking arms became used primarily for causing about half the wall to come down.

There were no prohibited zones; the first zone prohibition of any form came in 2006 (no more than 2 on defense during part of the game); the first all-match prohibition came in 2011 with the lanes. (Protected zones, where if you were in them you couldn't be hit, came a year earlier; see 2005's loading zone Kiss of Death 30-point penalty.)

In retrospect, the reason for the stack attack in Stack Attack was that 1) it was a whole lot easier to knock down a stack than to build it up, 2) the top of the ramp was worth a lot of points in comparison to a stack, 3) the stack height ruling just kept on changing, so nobody really knew how tall a stack actually was until some time into build, and 4) the bins broke so often that keeping enough around to build a stack in practice was pretty hard :p .

[Ekcrbe]

I think correcting the awful ranking and elimination system from 2003 would be the largest worry to correct for another stacking game. I wasn't around then, but I've looked back here on CD and heard from others that it was ridiculous.

After that, I think we will see another game with an absolute maximum score (i.e. the game pieces can only be scored once, then remain in the "scoring position"). I would rather play a recycling game like 2012, '10, '08 or '06, but it seems that 2013 being such a game would be just a bit "out of order."

My guess, which seems to be less common than some others, is the return of fixed, freestanding goals similar to the 2005 setup, but tetras aren't on the menu.

[Gigakaiser]

Rebound rumble was the first game in what may become a FIRST tradition of really spectator-friendly games. We don't need complicated scoring and viewing accompanying complicated engineering challenges. Which year brought in more publicity for FIRST - robots playing basketball, or robots hanging tubes on a wall?

[StAxis]

I think we'll probably see another lower scoring game like 2010, minus the sports themes of course, probably something luck related (at least for the name) since it's 2013.

[PVCpirate]

Rebound rumble was the first game in what may become a FIRST tradition of really spectator-friendly games. We don't need complicated scoring and viewing accompanying complicated engineering challenges. Which year brought in more publicity for FIRST - robots playing basketball, or robots hanging tubes on a wall?

I thought Breakaway was pretty spectator friendly. Soccer with robots, and you can hang from a bar for extra points. Unless you're implying that soccer is boring, which I would also disagree with.

[Siri]

I thought Breakaway was pretty spectator friendly. Soccer with robots, and you can hang from a bar for extra points. Unless you're implying that soccer is boring, which I would also disagree with.Several of my non-FIRST friends, even ones who love watching and/or playing soccer, thought Breakaway was unbearably slow. (I suspect it was robots' inability to execute awesome passing plays?) I think Rebound Rumble had a lot more movement and seemed more engaging to the crowds even at non-Championship levels.

[Mugurussa675]

Its all about a water game guys. (Not really) I think it will be some sort of race like Overdrive but with a different goal needed to win.

[sebflippers]

If we are looking for spectator-friendly, people really need to talk less before Einstein. I saw multiple randoms come by with their kids to see the finals. After loads of important people gave boring speaches for 3 hours, they left without seeing a single match.

[JohnSchneider]

The "spectator friendly" thing also translated better to Local news as "RObots shooting hoops" is a lot more reader friendly than "Robots picking up innertubes off the floor and hanging them on posts 3-6-and-9 feet off the ground"

I think well see less obstacles...or I hope we do - lower tier teams who couldnt pull down the bridge were next to useless this year and just ate up space. So Id like to go back to a somewhat flat field.

I'd personally like to see a stacking game because its been so long since the last true one.

[kiasam111]

Something that has lots of degrees of difficulty would be nice. Its already been said in various places, but defensive robots were actually quite hard to do due to the bridge/barrier. Overdrive, correct me if I'm wrong, allowed teams to simply build a driving base and still score points for their alliance. Something that is easy for rookies to do, but has more complex elements for the veteran teams to tackle =)

[ttldomination]

Several of my non-FIRST friends, even ones who love watching and/or playing soccer, thought Breakaway was unbearably slow. (I suspect it was robots' inability to execute awesome passing plays?) I think Rebound Rumble had a lot more movement and seemed more engaging to the crowds even at non-Championship levels.

I think spectator friendly also relates to how easily the crowd can pick up on the game and get excited. Obviously, Breakaway was easy to explain (Ball and Balance), and the same can be said for Logomotion (Hang and Race) and Breakaway (Soccer and Up).

This has been a goal that has been explicitly recognized by FIRST (I believe), and so it should be less than a surprise when we see a game that follow these trends.

Something that has lots of degrees of difficulty would be nice. Its already been said in various places, but defensive robots were actually quite hard to do due to the bridge/barrier. Overdrive, correct me if I'm wrong, allowed teams to simply build a driving base and still score points for their alliance. Something that is easy for rookies to do, but has more complex elements for the veteran teams to tackle =)

Your point actually strikes at a more fundamental level of creating of creating these games. The pertinent one being how do you balance a challenge so that the veterans are challenged while the rookies can still field a competetive drive base.

I agree that this game naturally discouraged drive bases, perhaps an unfortunate oversight. However, can we afford to have games that have such an elementary level while the best continue to get better?

- Sunny G.

[1502]

Anyone remember these (http://www.playgroundimagineering.co.uk/userfiles/image/Games-and-Sports-BallcatcherA.png)?

3"-4" pvc stacked vertically to make a platform for a robot to drive onto?

[Rangel(kf7fdb)]

I would love to play a game with rubber traffic cones(Maybe similar to triple play?). Then make it so that you can collect more than one at a time and you got one heck of an interesting challenge for teams. :rolleyes:

[KevinGoneNuts]

Its all about a water game guys. (Not really) I think it will be some sort of race like Overdrive but with a different goal needed to win.

Well remember 2013 is an odd year and they tend to stray away from sports related games in the odd years. Most likely it will be something completely and utterly crazy.

[PVCpirate]

Several of my non-FIRST friends, even ones who love watching and/or playing soccer, thought Breakaway was unbearably slow. (I suspect it was robots' inability to execute awesome passing plays?) I think Rebound Rumble had a lot more movement and seemed more engaging to the crowds even at non-Championship levels.

I was talking about what ttldomination mentioned, where spectator friendly meant easy to understand what the heck is going on. The excitement of Breakaway(or of soccer, for that matter) is debatable, but I don't think you can argue its simplicity.

[Gigakaiser]

FRC has never had a divided field - imagine a giant version of this :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAo6eAyh-VQ

[MARS_James]

FRC has never had a divided field - imagine a giant version of this :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAo6eAyh-VQ

Well we have had barriers and other things blocking traffic from one side to the other I don't think we will ever have a game where there is no way to interact with every robot on the field, though it would make for strategy during set up a lot of fun

[Anupam Goli]

FRC has never had a divided field - imagine a giant version of this :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAo6eAyh-VQ

Unrelated to the post a bit, but is that Grant Imahara from Mythbusters and Karthik in that video?!?!? That's awesome.

[PVCpirate]

FRC has never had a divided field - imagine a giant version of this :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAo6eAyh-VQ

Interesting concept, the robots actually do interact quite a bit, fighting to push balls over the wall, and they have to react every time balls switch sides. elements like this could work in FRC, but probably not an entirely sectioned field.

[CalTran]

Unrelated to the post a bit, but is that Grant Imahara from Mythbusters and Karthik in that video?!?!? That's awesome.

Haha I noticed Karthik..thought process: Is that Karthik?? "Chaaaammmpppiiioooonnnsss..." Yupp, that's Karthik alright.

As far as the 2013 game will be, it's certainly going to be a non-sport, and I cast my vote as well for something with an enhanced autonomous mode, given the past two years, a high scoring end game, but I don't think it's going to be a simple field.

[Gigakaiser]

Unrelated to the post a bit, but is that Grant Imahara from Mythbusters and Karthik in that video?!?!? That's awesome.

It is Grant. Kari Byron (also mythbusters) was at the championship the year after that.

As far as the 2013 game will be, it's certainly going to be a non-sport, and I cast my vote as well for something with an enhanced autonomous mode, given the past two years, a high scoring end game, but I don't think it's going to be a simple field.

That sounds right. Aren't the games designed years before they are played? Maybe this game was designed after 2009 or something. The designers probably wouldn't queue multiple sports games in a row unless they decided on really spectator-friendly games for the rest of FRC.

[Jay O'Donnell]

That sounds right. Aren't the games designed years before they are played? Maybe this game was designed after 2009 or something. They probably wouldn't queue multiple sports games in a row.

Based on what I have heard, only in the last few years have they planned ahead for games, before that they were made the year before. Rumor has it that they are just about done with 2013 and have a good start on 2014. (note: this is mostly rumors, it is not certainly correct)

[Pauline Tasci]

I just want to know whats in the KOP...

[davidthefat]

I just want to know whats in the KOP...

Most likely the usual.

[EricH]

Based on what I have heard, only in the last few years have they planned ahead for games, before that they were made the year before. Rumor has it that they are just about done with 2013 and have a good start on 2014. (note: this is mostly rumors, it is not certainly correct)
That would be a good timeline.

Now, they really only went into the planning ahead in the last couple of years... but better late than never. Games still aren't designed more than a year or two in advance, though.

[Ekcrbe]

...Games still aren't designed more than a year or two in advance, though.
If this implies they might keep getting farther ahead:

I think the GDC will limit themselves to designing the next two games, because:

Imagine some part of the 2013 game is terrible and everyone (including the GDC) agrees it shouldn't come back. The GDC wouldn't want to have a game queued up for four years later (possibly similar, because of all new students) that incorporates that same aspect, then have to redesign it.

Less years ahead means better reaction times on improvements to the games. I think future games will get consistently better, the more "bad ideas" have been eliminated, and the more good element combinations are found.

[Jay O'Donnell]

If this implies they might keep getting farther ahead:

I think the GDC will limit themselves to designing the next two games, because:

Imagine some part of the 2013 game is terrible and everyone (including the GDC) agrees it shouldn't come back. The GDC wouldn't want to have a game queued up for four years later (possibly similar, because of all new students) that incorporates that same aspect, then have to redesign it.

Less years ahead means better reaction times on improvements to the games. I think future games will get consistently better, the more "bad ideas" have been eliminated, and the more good element combinations are found.

I believe how it works is they have the basic game set for next year but they are still testing and changing little things. This leads me to believe that if it is a small rule that everyone hates, it could easily be fixed.

[Ekcrbe]

I believe how it works is they have the basic game set for next year but they are still testing and changing little things. This leads me to believe that if it is a small rule that everyone hates, it could easily be fixed.

Well the point was that they just started working ahead recently (after 2011 I believe) and if they continue to get more games ready, and then one needs changing, it detracts from the schedule and causes a domino effect of inconveniences as everyone has to shift gears and reopen a closed case. It's not likely going to be an issue regardless of what happens.

[MattC9]

I really just hope that its a simple field to build... I like 2011... 4 racks and some poles...

[Anupam Goli]

I really just hope that its a simple field to build... I like 2011... 4 racks and some poles...

Yup, so we don't have to shell out exorbitant amount of cash for those practice fields! :yikes:

[Walter Deitzler]

What if the game has to do with landing on Mars? There could be an autonomous where you have to get your robot to a certain part of the playing field (landing on Mars) to score points. The field could simulate rough terrain and be, well, rough. To score you could maybe have to move different pieces to different parts of the field to score (2005ish). The end game could be moving your robot to a different part of the field, but this one would be harder to get to than the rest of the field (Up a ramp? In a pit? UNDERWATER?!?!?! The possibilities are endless!) I think that an unconventional field could be fun!

[MattC9]

Yup, so we don't have to shell out exorbitant amount of cash for those practice fields! :yikes:

That. and having to store the thing...

[Siri]

What if the game has to do with landing on Mars? There could be an autonomous where you have to get your robot to a certain part of the playing field (landing on Mars) to score points. The field could simulate rough terrain and be, well, rough. To score you could maybe have to move different pieces to different parts of the field to score (2005ish). The end game could be moving your robot to a different part of the field, but this one would be harder to get to than the rest of the field (Up a ramp? In a pit? UNDERWATER?!?!?! The possibilities are endless!) I think that an unconventional field could be fun!If they were modeling it after Curiosity--which is a cool idea--I'd lean towards a "climb an mountain" endgame. (king of the hill?) The rough surface for all/a lot of the field is worrying though: sounds expensive, at least for those of us practicing on the same tile, gym floor or donated carpet every year. (Plus people would dislike it just because it resembles the L-word.):yikes:

The idea is an intriguing one, though. It seemed to me that the GDC was talking about turning more seriously/permanently to straightforward, fast-paced sports in order to increase "spectator friendliness" and answer the perennial "ok, but why bother to [stack tetras, hang tubes, drag trailera] in the first place?" question. But the idea of mimicking to some laymen-appreciable extent an impressive scientific feat, while still maintaining an interesting, friendly, strategic, everything-a-good-FRC-game-has-to-be game is really very cool, if it's possible.


My money's still on footballs.

[MARS_James]

What if the game has to do with landing on Mars? !

But what if us and 2614 don't want to be landed on :p

[Walter Deitzler]

rough surface for all/a lot of the field is worrying though: sounds expensive, at least for those of us practicing on the same tile, gym floor or donated carpet every year. (Plus people would dislike it just because it resembles the L-word.):yikes:


What if it is tiled rough terrain? Each tile would be the same, and then they would give you some in your KOP. Then you wouldn't have to have an entire floor of terrain, just the tiles that you got. And then you could practice on them!

[Siri]

What if it is tiled rough terrain? Each tile would be the same, and then they would give you some in your KOP. Then you wouldn't have to have an entire floor of terrain, just the tiles that you got. And then you could practice on them!Certainly better than buying regolith sheets! But again, it's less about having whole floors available and more about supplying 2,500 driving surfaces that are noticeably rough (but meet all other requirements) -- somebody's paying for it, whether there's samples in the KOP or not. It's an interesting game design challenge.

Just issue everyone triangular wheels (or cover the floor with really big corn kernels)

[Anupam Goli]

Just issue everyone triangular wheels (or cover the floor with really big corn kernels)

everyone will be screaming in torment, saying "Wasn't Regolith an Lunacy wheels enough?!?!?" ;)

[bduddy]

I was just looking up some trends, and since 1996 (the year before the first game not involving balls), every game in an even-numbered year has included a ball as a main game piece and every game in an odd-numbered year has not*, bar 2001, which is widely considered the worst FRC game ever. We all know the GDC loves bucking trends, but will they dare to break this pattern again? I doubt it....

* and 2009, but those orbit balls weren't really "balls", right?

[Orion.DeYoe]

Seeing as the just had a couple of shooting games and another racking game, I think they're going back to a stacking game.

Yes this is my opinion as well. I think the chances of having a stacking game are pretty high (unless they do something very unexpected and unique) and I would really like to see them do one.

[Nick Lawrence]

Yes this is my opinion as well. I think the chances of having a stacking game are pretty high (unless they do something very unexpected and unique) and I would really like to see them do one.

I'd be okay with this as long as it has nothing to do with Stack Attack. Though I never played it, it kind of looked awful to me in terms of scoring complication.

I'm going to go brush up on active drive systems, and linear lift systems.

-Nick