Ideal FRC Game

[cmrnpizzo14]

Since the hint thread is becoming quite clogged with what people would like to see and less of what we might actually see, I think we need a new thread to discuss what people would want to see. Come up with all of your game hints here, regardless of feasibility.

Have at it people, your turn to be GDC!

[Koko Ed]

Since there is no NHL this season it be a great time to supplment the shortage of hockey with my game idea Hot Potatoe (http://edgpatterson.deviantart.com/gallery/5632414#/d282vqu)

[orangemoore]

I think that an idea could be a mix of Aim High, and Overdrive. The game piece could be a foam football.

[ChristopherSD]

Durable game pieces.
Aaaaanddd Coopertition having less value.

[JJackson]

You could even use a roomba as the puck... as long as you don't have bridges.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3FzCCJaJi0

[Samwaldo]

Durable game pieces.
Aaaaanddd Coopertition having less value.

I second this

[electrostatics1]

I think this year they will bring back suspending your robot in air,as in First Frenzy and Breakaway.

[Ernst]

Durable game pieces.


Lets go a step further.

An ideal game would have durable game pieces that were also readily available in the necessary quantities for FIRST teams, with suppliers that wouldn't be surprised by a sudden overload of demand for their product.

[Koko Ed]

You could even use a roomba as the puck... as long as you don't have bridges.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3FzCCJaJi0

I think Roombas would make great game pieces (they certainly aren't very good at cleaning). They just need to make them move faster and add evasive programming.

[JJackson]

Lets go a step further.

An ideal game would have durable game pieces that were also readily available in the necessary quantities for FIRST teams, with suppliers that wouldn't be surprised by a sudden overload of demand for their product.

that's where the tetras and rubber maid bins came in handy. FIRST could also just use the kop totes as a game piece

[Gregor]

A flat field.

[Andrew Lawrence]

^ Gregor is the game piece.

[akoscielski3]

^ Gregor is the game piece.

steeler.

[Gregor]

^ Gregor is the game piece.

Congratulations, your 2500th post was something meaningless centered around me.:D

[gabrielau23]

I take it you two know each other?

[Flimsor]

You could even use a roomba as the puck... as long as you don't have bridges.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3FzCCJaJi0

I remember something like that happening at a regional

[cmrnpizzo14]

that's where the tetras and rubber maid bins came in handy. FIRST could also just use the kop totes as a game piece

I was not on an FRC team in '05, were tetras easy to make out of PVC or something? And I think the KOP bins might be tough with the lids. Maybe something similar to FTC where it is an open-top bin that you load pieces into?

[Cuog]

I was not on an FRC team in '05, were tetras easy to make out of PVC or something? And I think the KOP bins might be tough with the lids. Maybe something similar to FTC where it is an open-top bin that you load pieces into?

Yes, the kit came with very easy instructions and I don't remember there being any issues with places running out of PVC since the quantities most teams needed was pretty small compared to use in construction etc.

My ideal game: projectiles and exciting end game, that's really all I want :D

[CalTran]

My ideal game: projectiles and exciting end game, that's really all I want :D

I always thought basketball would make an interesting game...perhaps then an end game where the robots could flip either way. Teeter-totters would be an interesting challenge. :rolleyes:

My ideal game would be something easy to explain to the audience, have short enough segments that a quick match segment would explain the game, but challenging enough that significant thought would have to be put in by the teams to compete at the top level. And even though it breaks the game, a hidden choke hold strategy would be nice. It makes for an interesting robot every now and then.

[Gregor]

I was not on an FRC team in '05, were tetras easy to make out of PVC or something? And I think the KOP bins might be tough with the lids. Maybe something similar to FTC where it is an open-top bin that you load pieces into?

Games with readily accessible game peices since 2003, to the best of my knowledge.

03-totes
05-PVC tetras
10-soccer balls

Were the 04 dodge balls accessible?

[Walter Deitzler]

A lot of bot on bot action would be nice. An open field with few safe zones, and intense defensive possibilities.

[dellagd]

A lot of bot on bot action would be nice. An open field with few safe zones, and intense defensive possibilities.

Agreed. I wish defense was more "allowed"

[Andrew Lawrence]

I'd like to see another game where teams can hold an infinite number of game pieces, but make it so that handling more than 1 is natural (ie it was awkward for most handling two tetras in 2005).

[Tristan Lall]

Games with readily accessible game peices since 2003, to the best of my knowledge.

03-totes
05-PVC tetras
10-soccer balls

Were the 04 dodge balls accessible?
The trouble isn't that soccer balls or playground balls aren't available, it's that those soccer balls or playground balls are hard to source. (People cared less in 2002, because the soccer balls frankly didn't matter much. 2010 was much different.)

Unless supply is an intentional game constraint (very bad idea), FIRST needs to ensure that there is a supply chain available for the actual game pieces, or demonstrate (with supporting analysis) that the actual game pieces differ insignificantly from alternatives more widely available.

For example, the tetras were a good idea in principle, except that the connectors were not widely available. FIRST probably should have used sheet polycarbonate connectors of a slightly different configuration (less stress concentration in the corners) instead of the moulded plastic ones. That would have solved production issues (any laser, waterjet or CNC router shop could make them, as could many teams), and would probably have been cheaper to mass-produce for the game. That's perhaps only obvious in hindsight, but now that they've had the experience, hopefully they're taking it to heart.1

1 Maybe they did consider and reject these for some reason. It's entirely possible that these were somehow unacceptable as well.

[Tristan Lall]

Agreed. I wish defense was more "allowed"
I'd be happy to see vigourous defence being allowed in the game again. That way we could at least get some use out of the bumpers.

An ideal implementation would include defensive opportunities with skill/capability required, and meaningful strategic tradeoffs. (For example, goaltending allowed if the defending robot is not making contact with anything inside a certain safe area, or if the defender is entirely supported by something precarious.)

[stundt1]

In my ideal game

I would not like:
Minibots
Kinect
anything having to do with 2009 :P

I would like:
A game like 2004
A game which involves hanging
Coopertition like balancing
Scoring in the center of the field

[JJackson]

FIRST probably should have used sheet polycarbonate connectors of a slightly different configuration instead of the moulded plastic ones. That would have solved production issues (any laser, waterjet or CNC router shop could make them, as could many teams), and would probably have been cheaper to mass-produce for the game.

We actually made our own connectors for the tetras, out of pvc ends and Lexan (cut with a bandsaw). I'm not sure if FIRST said to do this or I we just did it, but we didn't require any thing we couldn't get from our local hardware store

[Twest3259]

My Ideal game would be a mix of king of the hill (with the hill in the centre much like stackattack but steeper) mixed with capture some sort of game piece and get it back to your side of the field. no safe zones on the field. Just really let the Defensive strategies be a big part of it. also a tunnel on each side that goes through the hill. for quick bring backs but the loss of visibility of your bot. and the end game would be to drive onto the hill and stack your alliance partners ontop of you. for extra points.

[Justin Montois]

I feel like I posted something like this on here somewhere..but

I want a game with an Auto Mode that give you a significant bonus for completing, unlike 2009, 2010. Past two years have been perfect.

A teleop mode that presents teams with a wide variety of strategies and rules that don't limit creativity

And lastly, an end game that encourages strong Cooperation among the alliance, not just "Get robots behind a line"

We'll know in just a few days!

[Andrew Lawrence]

And lastly, an end game that encourages strong Cooperation among the alliance, not just "Get robots behind a line"


I want to echo this. It seemed this year's endgame, while fine in eliminations, was focused more upon cooperating with the opposing alliance during the qualifying rounds, and previous years were usually focused on one robot acting on itself to complete a task. I'd like to see an endgame that involves teamwork and strategy with your own alliance to complete a group task.

[ChristopherSD]

A lot of bot on bot action would be nice. An open field with few safe zones, and intense defensive possibilities.

Safe zones are for the weak.

[Damiaen_Florian]

Honestly I would just like to see 2011 again

Except allow descoring of the tubes (probably could get pretty messy, but I would still like to see some concepts that teams could come up with)

Oh and make the minibots worth less points, what I was thinking was 20pts. for 1st, 15 - 2nd, 10 - 3rd and 5- 4th, oh and maybe a little less value on coopertition as well

[gyroscopeRaptor]

Personally I would like an endgame like 2004 in the sense that all robots cannot possibly do the endgame and an alliance can move to deny the opposing alliance of the endgame.

[Ian Curtis]

I want a game with an Auto Mode that give you a significant bonus for completing, unlike 2009, 2010. Past two years have been perfect.


Why do you think they were undervalued? A bad (ie someone didn't move) autonomous in 2009 was basically a death sentence. In 2010 a typical alliance would score about 3 pts in the entire match, so a free shot on goal was actually a pretty big deal.

If anything I think hybrid in 2012 was if anything over-valued, more basket points were scored in hybrid than in teleop! Should 15 seconds be more important than 2 minutes?

Personally I would like an endgame like 2004 in the sense that all robots cannot possibly do the endgame and an alliance can move to deny the opposing alliance of the endgame.

You could have all four robots hang in 2004, it was just pretty crowded. I agree though, it would be fun for the crowd to see the return of a "fighting" end game.

[Peyton Yeung]

A central scoring area, little to no protected areas, less restrictions on robot design, and some sort of elevated robot end game.

A boy can dream right?

[Donut]

Personally I would like an endgame like 2004 in the sense that all robots cannot possibly do the endgame and an alliance can move to deny the opposing alliance of the endgame.

You could have all four robots hang in 2004, it was just pretty crowded. I agree though, it would be fun for the crowd to see the return of a "fighting" end game.

My ideal game would definitely include some sort of direct competition for the end game between the alliances, but I'd be satisfied with any well made end game given most of the games I've seen. Since 2004 only 2007 (lifting) and 2012 (balancing) have been exciting and worth a significant amount of points; 2011 was too fast to be exciting, 2009 was difficult and rarely utilized, and all other years were worth too little of points to matter.

Other features of a good game are easy to obtain game pieces, an autonomous period that provides an advantage/bonus to the winner of it (not just "move or die" ala 2009), and a good point balance between scoring methods. Games that can be explained in less than 30 seconds are a plus.

[z_beeblebrox]

I'd like to see another game where teams can hold an infinite number of game pieces, but make it so that handling more than 1 is natural (ie it was awkward for most handling two tetras in 2005).

I second that. You haven't been able to hold a large number of game pieces since Lunacy and it seems fun to design a high-capacity robot. I think that 1-2' pieces of 1' PVC pipe could be fun. Maybe some kind of defensive end-game.

[apalrd]

Good things about a game:

-Easy to understand scoring objectives and at least relative weighting (e.g. higher goals are better) for the audience. This is the highest objective.

-Lowest level task is approachable by a weak teams
-Highest level task is a challenge for the best teams

-There are not too many ways to score. In fact, as few as possible different ways to score is better. Varying the height or size of targets but leaving the scoring otherwise the same, is considered one way to score.

-Autonomous has to be worth doing.

-Endgame has to be worth doing. It should have the capability to swing most matches if executed well or failed, but not so much that winning or loosing it is totally devastating for the loser (2011 fails, it's worth too much). The bridges of 2012 are well-balanced. 2010 is actually fairly close to balanced, only because the average team could score so little.

-The winning move must always be to win, as an alliance There are some cases where the seeding system changes so the winning move might be to not win. That makes little sense to the audience (who are very important). In 2012, the cooperatition bridge was very very bad for this in quals. In 2010, there were some cases where it was desirable to score for the opposing alliance in a '6v0' match play, or even to score for them after (or even before in one case) guaranteeing a win for yourself to game the seeding system, which heavily weighted close wins over total blowouts (the winner received their score + 2x losers score + 5pts, the loser received only the winners score). The winning move in Elims is always to win, anything that really changes the game between Quals and Elims will make the game confusing for spectators and will reduce the quality of the seeding ranks.


And, for completely personal preference, I prefer games where the GDC does not limit the number of objects one team can carry. I do like games where its hard to carry multiples, and I like 2005. I also like 2005 and 2007 because I haven't personally written code for a double-jointed arm with linked motions outside of simulation (the 2011 elevator-arm is linked-state but the joints are not dependent on each other), and it would be fun. The 'Get Tetra From Belly' move sounds like fun too.

[Tetraman]

I have two simple wishes.

1. Water Cooler barrels as game pieces - most of them empty, some with a gallon of water in them, and two or three completely filled.

2. The game element that robots must score is parts of the field. Such as teams must "capture" parts of the field, and are given a score at the end of the game equal to the percentage of the field they owned at the end of the match.

[ChristopherSD]

It should have the capability to swing most matches if executed well or failed, but not so much that winning or loosing it is totally devastating for the loser (2011 fails, it's worth too much).

SO MUCH RESPECT FOR YOU, SIR.

[Gregor]

A central scoring area, little to no protected areas, less restrictions on robot design, and some sort of elevated robot end game.

A boy can dream right?

So, 2007?

[Astechz_Nick]

I would like to see a FRC game based around hockey. For the endgame I would like to see either hanging like in 2004 or carrying other robots like in 2007.

[dag0620]

Stacking! I would absolutely love some concept of stacking tote bins again!

Also I want to diddo those who want a spectator friendly game that's easy to explain. As the main man for Public Relations, games such as 2008, 2010, and 2012, make my job so much easier.

[ToddF]

How about a game where the robots are the playing pieces, and the difficulty is navigating the playing field? The object is to touch the far side wall, for 10 points, then your own side to reset. The obstacle is that there is a 6 foot high wall in the center of the field. The wall has two openings (red and blue), 1'x2', three feet off the floor, where the red and blue ramps were this year. Robots may go through the slots or over the wall. Only robots that match the slot color may pass through the slots, and preventing a robot from going through a slot is a penalty. Autonomous scores are worth 30 points. End game is to be 5 feet above the floor, supported only by yourself and the wall (no other robots), 30 points. Coopertition points scored by assisting other robots to return to their side of the wall, 10 points. Halfway through the match, a section of the wall drops in the center (where the coop bridge was this year), leaving a 3 foot wide opening, 3 feet off the floor.

This game would encourage differentiation in robots. It would be difficult, but not impossible, to score yourself. There would be lightweight scoring robots that go over the wall or through the slots. There would be helper robots that help the scorers get through the slots or over the wall. Some might be able to do both.

Interesting twists could be made by playing with which side of the field is the scoring side (near or far). You could also play with making the wall either transparent, or opaque (or some combination).

To make it most interesting, robots start on the far side of an opaque wall. Robots are allowed to carry one video camera each, and the video feed from all the cameras on an alliance goes to all the operator stations on that alliance. So, even robots that never move during a match would at least provide valuable video to their partners. The video scoreboard would display the video feeds from all the robots on the field, so the spectators have the advantage of seeing both sides of the field, and also all the video feeds. Kind of like televised poker. If a drive team were good enough, they could watch the big board instead of their operator station, to see all six video feeds.

Defense is legal once a robot is on the floor, but would be difficult, since the defenders would only have video to drive by, and the scorers would have eyeballs on their robot.

In the simplest version of the game, with everyone playing nice, two ramp bots on each side sit by the slots and a scoring bot from each side races up and down the ramps, back and forth through the slots, scoring points. There would be lots of strategy around when to help your opponent return to their side of the field. Scoring robots that could score on their own have a big advantage.

Because of the size of the slots, previously developed, "stock" drivetrains won't be the biggest scoring bots. Robots which are small, light, fast, and can get through the slots on their own would be the best. If you stick with a previously developed drivetrain, you have to go over the 6 foot wall, help other bots through the slots, or wait until the center section drops, and fight to get through.

Edit: While we are dreaming, robot rules would allow the Arduino Controls Package (am-2316), to replace the CRIO, and robot electrical power to be provided by any 3C LiPo battery, as long as it was fully enclosed by a battery box of minimum 1/8" aluminum construction.

[IKE]

I feel like I posted something like this on here somewhere..but

I want a game with an Auto Mode that give you a significant bonus for completing, unlike 2009, 2010. Past two years have been perfect.
...snip!

I think you highly underestimated the importance of Auto Mode in 2010 and 2009. While 2009, you just needed to move (spinning worked well), if you didn't you were loaded up.

In 2010, clearing your zone, and sending balls to your home zone was huge. Getting those 3 balls into your home zone was a a potential 6 point swing.

[sebflippers]

Water game with minibots. The normal robot is on the field, but dumps a minibot into a small tank to push a button or something.

[Nemo]

My wishes for good games:

No Kinect please.

Autonomous that does not require vision targets to be good. I don't think it was necessary to use the camera in any of the games I've been involve in (2009 on). It seems like getting a camera to work in FRC is less about developing the code to process images and determine robot moves and more about the struggle to calibrate for the event lighting and figuring out how to get an image back without lagging your cRio. Unless those issues get easier, I will remain wary of cameras.

Tough Strategic Tradeoffs - I don't want it to constantly be obvious what we should be trying to do next like it generally was in 2011. In 2010 and 2012, you had to make tough choices about where to be and what to do - that was cool.

Flat field. But if the field has topography, design it with the idea that some teams aren't going to be able to make it over the obstacles, so there should still be a mostly flat path available (possibly less conveniently located or more crowded) from one end of the field to the other.

Seeding system that never rewards you for scoring less or intentionally scoring for the opponent.

Absence of penalties that constantly require difficult judgments by the referees.

Easy field to build.

My #1 wish: a game that can be practiced in a room with a 9 foot ceiling!

[JJackson]

Imagine a game where the field is like a giant ball pit and those balls are your game pieces....
plus there is either hanging or robot lifting at the end

[KJGreen]

Coming from someone who competed in BotBall, I would like a much longer autonomous period. BotBall was a fully autonomous competition and it really challenged our programmers. A 15 second period it just not long enough to really allow teams to show off what they can do. In the 2012 game, with more time I am sure teams would have been able to shoot 2 shots, clear their bridge, cross their bridge, and pass the opposing alliances missed shots back to their side.

[apalrd]

Because of the size of the slots, previously developed, "stock" drivetrains won't be the biggest scoring bots. Robots which are small, light, fast, and can get through the slots on their own would be the best. If you stick with a previously developed drivetrain, you have to go over the 6 foot wall, help other bots through the slots, or wait until the center section drops, and fight to get through.

I think you're completely missing the point about developing drivetrains, and using designs from the design shelf.

When we build prototype drivetrains pre-season, we have several goals:
-Design exercise for everyone involved
-Better performance in any number of categories (turning performance and weight are most commonly optimized) than what we have now
-Find a way to manufacture it easily using our resources
-Create a list of lessons learned that we would change the next time we built a similar drivetrain.

We built a nice development platform in the 2010 off-season. We ended up with an 8wd Dual Drive articulating rear wheel cantilever live axle chassis, with fully automated articulation (all written in C on the IFI processor) and Toughboxes that went around 11fps. We used kit wheels (2008 gray style) because we had a lot of them. We had a lot of things we wanted to learn, so we designed it to test all of them:
-Could we get away with thinwall (1/16th") box tube?
-Would our 2-plate bearing carrier work?
-Would the dynamic performance of the articulating drivetrain be better than a flat 8wd? We also wanted to develop algorithms for this since it worked well in initial tests.
-Would our method of chain tensioning work? We were slightly concerned about the lack of dynamic tensioning on the articulating wheels, and wanted to prove it.

We learned a lot. If, in 2011, we wanted to build a wide robot, it would not have been very hard to use the lessons learned from previous designs to build something good. We put the test chassis on our design shelf (figuratively, it was physically left in the basement), and decided it might be useful in the 2011 season (which it was). When we took the design off the shelf for season use, we also had a list of things we didn't like that we would change, changed them all, and modified it to fit our design goals for that season.

Most of the design in a design from the design shelf is not the exact length and width of the chassis. Had we been required to build a smaller or larger robot, we could have taken the wheel module assembly and located it anywhere along the frame rail, and adjusted the frame rail as necessary, or even added or subtracted wheels easily. To change the length and width, a total of four pieces would be made differently. All of the 'tough' design work was already done, in designing the wheel module assemblies. Those would not change, even as the robot dimensions change.

What's cool about that is we already have the 'stock' engineering done. For a specific game, once we decide we are building a skid-steer robot, and we make a general mechanism package model (large rectangles of space reserved for mechanisms, and optimal hard mounting points), we can CAD the frame rails or panels, and drop in the wheel module model we already have, and make it.


Basically, what I'm saying is that it's not hard to change the dimensions of a shelf design to fit another set of requirements.

[ToddF]

apalrd,
You raise some great points. If you don't mind, I'd like to paste your response into a new thread topic, as not to hijack this thread.

[Justin Montois]

Why do you think they were undervalued? A bad (ie someone didn't move) autonomous in 2009 was basically a death sentence. In 2010 a typical alliance would score about 3 pts in the entire match, so a free shot on goal was actually a pretty big deal.

If anything I think hybrid in 2012 was if anything over-valued, more basket points were scored in hybrid than in teleop! Should 15 seconds be more important than 2 minutes?


I think you highly underestimated the importance of Auto Mode in 2010 and 2009. While 2009, you just needed to move (spinning worked well), if you didn't you were loaded up.

In 2010, clearing your zone, and sending balls to your home zone was huge. Getting those 3 balls into your home zone was a a potential 6 point swing.

I think you both are right but missing the point at the same time. Of course in those years having little to no autonomous mode hurt you, but like I said, there wasn't a significant bonus for completing it, at least in my opinion.

In 2011, 1 ubertube on the top row, could increase your score by 12 points, while the tube itself was worth 6. A regular tube was worth 3.

In 2012, each ball was scored was 4,5, or 6 points instead of 1,2, or 3.

Both 2011 and 2012 to me are perfect auto modes as they essentially doubled the teleop value of the same action. This is what I prefer and I hope that style continues.

[dellagd]

My wishes for good games:

No Kinect please.

~snip~

My #1 wish: a game that can be practiced in a room with a 9 foot ceiling!

While I really second the thing about the ceiling, I don't get why everyone is hating on the Kinect so much. They offered a fun way that you are able to control the robot. Nothing more than that. It's your choice whether or not you want to use it. Some teams did, some did not. Personally, even though I do not like the way the Kinect was used THIS year, I think the Kinect will be a very fun and interesting to use in FRC, both on the robot and with a human player. But even if I didn't, that doesn't mean that I WANT it not to be there, other teams may want it. I'm just not understanding all of the "get rid of the Kinect" stuff people are saying. No one said you had to use it.

[Nemo]

While I really second the thing about the ceiling, I don't get why everyone is hating on the Kinect so much. They offered a fun way that you are able to control the robot. Nothing more than that. It's your choice whether or not you want to use it. Some teams did, some did not. Personally, even though I do not like the way the Kinect was used THIS year, I think the Kinect will be a very fun and interesting to use in FRC, both on the robot and with a human player. But even if I didn't, that doesn't mean that I WANT it not to be there, other teams may want it. I'm just not understanding all of the "get rid of the Kinect" stuff people are saying. No one said you had to use it.

Last year it was harmless, and it won't bother me if that type of implementation sticks around. But I'm hoping Kinect doesn't become crucial for being competitive in the hybrid period, because I don't think it's the right tool for the job. If it's important this year, maybe we'll just use it as an elaborate switch.

[Koko Ed]

While I really second the thing about the ceiling, I don't get why everyone is hating on the Kinect so much. They offered a fun way that you are able to control the robot. Nothing more than that. It's your choice whether or not you want to use it. Some teams did, some did not. Personally, even though I do not like the way the Kinect was used THIS year, I think the Kinect will be a very fun and interesting to use in FRC, both on the robot and with a human player. But even if I didn't, that doesn't mean that I WANT it not to be there, other teams may want it. I'm just not understanding all of the "get rid of the Kinect" stuff people are saying. No one said you had to use it.

All Kinect was good for last year was to cause Replays at the events I worked at. We had to assign to people to guard it as if Obama was in the zone prancing around. If anyone set one foot in there during the autonomous period the match was a scratch and had to be redone.It was more trouble than it was worth.

[Jwingate3015]

I think it would be neat if the game field had multiple levels to it, and it would have stack-able game pieces that the robot would have to stack, then drive up to reach higher levels where it would then accomplish a second objective.

Or, perhaps if the game field or the drive team were completely concealed, having no physical view of the robot, requiring them to rely completely on cameras and sensors on the robot in order to maneuver around the game field.

[cmrnpizzo14]

All Kinect was good for last year was to cause Replays at the events I worked at. We had to assign to people to guard it as if Obama was in the zone prancing around. If anyone set one foot in there during the autonomous period the match was a scratch and had to be redone.It was more trouble than it was worth.

Not necessarily true. For hybrid, yes it caused replays and was not often utilized by teams (although we did benefit from one of those replays at CMP....:D ). However, the teams that took advantage of the Kinect's vision capabilities for targeting were incredibly successful if their programmers spent some time on it.

I like the idea of having the kinect available in Hybrid/Auton. especially if that period were increased to say 30 seconds (?) This would help fulfill a 3 minute game like so many people are looking for, and allow more utilization of the kinect. For 15 seconds, it is not useful, but in 30 seconds a lot could happen. We would see a lot of dead robots on the field for the final 10 seconds of hybrid, but if a team could successfully utilize the kinect, even for a brief 10 seconds after a 20 second Auton program, I think it would be a real game changer and make for an interesting competition.

......but really, those field issues do need to be resolved......

[Gregor]

However, the teams that took advantage of the Kinect's vision capabilities for targeting were incredibly successful if their programmers spent some time on it.

As far as I know, this should be team.

[Phyrxes]

My only real Kinect memory from last season is a team that used it help their bridge balancing. After successfully balancing the student became excited and celebrated by making a few "happy gestures" and as the match wasn't over yet, the bot reacted to the motion by driving off the bridge.

[MetalJacket]

The kinect last year did open up the opportunity for the human players to have a little extra fun during hybrid, as was seen in the Cheesy Poof's wonderful hybrid mode (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaOiaC0I8pY)

[Gregor]

My only real Kinect memory from last season is a team that used it help their bridge balancing. After successfully balancing the student became excited and celebrated by making a few "happy gestures" and as the match wasn't over yet, the bot reacted to the motion by driving off the bridge.

Why would a team balance in hybrid?

[dellagd]

I like the idea of having the kinect available in Hybrid/Auton. especially if that period were increased to say 30 seconds (?) This would help fulfill a 3 minute game like so many people are looking for, and allow more utilization of the kinect. For 15 seconds, it is not useful, but in 30 seconds a lot could happen. We would see a lot of dead robots on the field for the final 10 seconds of hybrid, but if a team could successfully utilize the kinect, even for a brief 10 seconds after a 20 second Auton program, I think it would be a real game changer and make for an interesting competition.

......but really, those field issues do need to be resolved......

My thoughts exactly. Oh and for a post above, there are three white papers listed from 3 different teams on having the kinect on the robot. ~teams~ is correct.

[JJackson]

I like how this started on the Official game hint thread, it was decided game ideas were "hijacking" that thread then there was the pre-season drive trains(got a new thread), and now the Kinect.....

On another note a game where we get to use six CIMs could be interesting....

[apalrd]

On another note a game where we get to use six CIMs could be interesting....

What do you gain in a CIM over a FP or 550 motor?

-A lot of Weight
-Thermal mass
-A bit of power


You currently have up to 8 550-sized motors which provide a lot of power. For reference:
CIM: ~340w
RS 550 (Banebots): ~250w
RS 775 (Banebots): ~265w @12v
FP 9015: ~185w
FP 0673: ~290w
Andyprice: ~185w

Under 2012 motor rules, the RS 550's and FP's are not too far off CIM spec, and many of the motors are significantly more power-dense than a CIM. If used as a 6-motor drivetrain, for example, you KNOW that the CIM will spin the output under high load (so the 550 will be cooled, at least somewhat), and under very high load 6 motors will take the battery voltage down so low it doesn't even matter.

As for mechanisms, stalling anything will burn it up eventually. Don't stall it. Even a CIM dosen't really like to be stalled forever.

You have 8 HIGH POWERED MOTORS. You don't need any more CIMs.

[IKE]

I think you both are right but missing the point at the same time...

Both 2011 and 2012 to me are perfect auto modes as they essentially doubled the teleop value of the same action. This is what I prefer and I hope that style continues.

Fair enough, this is the "Ideal FRC Game", and not the "Sorta OK FRC Game" thread.
************************************************** ******
I am a huge fan of Tic-Tac-Toe style games where you get points for scoring objects, and you can get a bonus for scoring objects in a row.

[cmrnpizzo14]

I am a huge fan of Tic-Tac-Toe style games where you get points for scoring objects, and you can get a bonus for scoring objects in a row.

I agree, but sometimes a typical 3x3 board causes a bit of boring play because the center space is so heavily defended. I would like to see some change, possibly a 4x4 grid where you can effectively create 4 separate 3x3 boards that you could score on. There might be a problem with this, but I think that it would make things more interesting...

[JJackson]

Ok I see what you mean.


I like games where there is some sort of obstacle to traverse. The other thing that may be interesting is if you had longer finals matches, as the last two or three matches should be the best display of robotics at an event.

[Robert Cawthon]

Ok I see what you mean.


I like games where there is some sort of obstacle to traverse. The other thing that may be interesting is if you had longer finals matches, as the last two or three matches should be the best display of robotics at an event.

I liked the Aim High field where there was no obstacle in the field, but a ramp you had to climb for the end game.

[RedLeader342]

^ Gregor is the game piece.

agreed. lets make gregor the game piece

[JJackson]

looks like we get six cims and hanging

[2348humanplayer]

A game where Human Players are used more often to score, like '98 or '99.

[Toa Circuit]

Me personally? I think catapaulting giant yoga balls (Those just seem like such fun game pieces) and having to cross over rough terrain (Like a 1-foot tall, sudden 90 degree slope) with no human interaction, maybe longer autonomous (Its a ROBOTICS competition, not human competition) seems like an awesome game.

A full autonomous game would be pretty cool if you ask me, though. Robots unknowingly bashing into each other... could make for some very interesting gameplay.