[FRC Blog] Kickoff Broadcast and Game Hint Redux

[crism18]

Jokes aside. When going back to the triangle in 2d, it's sort of like a paper football.

[atucker4072]

I know it's not that hard, but that leaves it open to human error of the referees. If they aren't paying attention for a few seconds, it could cause swings in the score.

Imagine wall passes - pass the puck to a rookie team who may not be able to score, but then you swing back around and pick it up from them on the other side...whoa...

This could be very exiting! It also makes it so that all robots, good or not, can still play the game and help their alliance! I like this idea. I think it could be a viable option to make more teams be useful in a match instead of siting around trying to play defense.

[Abhishek R]

This could be very exiting! It also makes it so that all robots, good or not, can still play the game and help their alliance! I like this idea. I think it could be a viable option to make more teams be useful in a match instead of siting around trying to play defense.

Or like in Capture the Flag and football, you only chase the guy with the flag/ball. So you give away the game piece to get the defense off of you then get it back later when you can find an opening.

Oh wait, that's how virtually most team sports work...still pretty awesome.

[atucker4072]

Jokes aside. When going back to the triangle in 2d, it's sort of like a paper football.

We think we have a good idea. Look back to previous posts about both game hints lining up with assists. If it were in fact a paper football I'm sure that they would make the coordinate points so that it would be a perfect isosceles triangle.

[atucker4072]

Or like in Capture the Flag and football, you only chase the guy with the flag/ball. So you give away the game piece to get the defense off of you then get it back later when you can find an opening.

Oh wait, that's how virtually most team sports work...still pretty awesome.

This would probably mean the object would have to be in clear view the whole time while still being able to pass it on. Then we run into of an issue of how does the alliance that doesn't have the object score?

[Joseph1825]

I was talking with my mom several weeks ago and I told her my idea for this years game. I guessed the game would be hockey. I thought there would be three zones and one robot from each alliance will be in each zone per match. You would play with a giant hockey puck (~18 across) and there would be goals on each side of the field. Each time a puck was scored another one would be introduced at the mid-field.
I didn't expect that my guess might actually be close to right.:eek:

[cad321]

Unfortunately I've been getting behind on my reading of all the posts so im unsure as to whether anyone has seen this yet however did you notice that 2 of the numbers in the new hint are anagrams for the numbers in the old hint? Not to sure where/if this will lead to anything but just thought I'd throw it out there. Also 2 of the numbers stayed the same but that was pretty obvious.

[Anthony4004]

Unfortunately I've been getting behind on my reading of all the posts so im unsure as to whether anyone has seen this yet however did you notice that 2 of the numbers in the new hint are anagrams for the numbers in the old hint? Not to sure where/if this will lead to anything but just thought I'd throw it out there. Also 2 of the numbers stayed the same but that was pretty obvious.

yes its a different format for dates. We have already "solved" the hint as being the birth dates of record assisting athletes and their number of assists. PLEASE read the thread (or at least browse) before posting!

[dellagd]

....so, um, Green isn't the answer? :mad:

tl;dr: Did anyone parse the original hint numbers using the same theory (:assists: ) to see what they got?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but here are the original numbers:

"8234/57" -> 3-4-82 w/ 57 assists -> Landon Donovan w/ most assists in US Soccer

"61126/1963" -> 61-1-26 w/ 1963 assists -> Wayne Gretzky w/ most assists in NHL

"62326/15806" -> 3-26-62 w/ 15,806 assists -> John Stockton w/ most assists in NBA



And the new numbers:

"61474:135" -> 6-14-74 w/ 135 assists -> Steve Ralston w/ most assists in MLS

"12661:1963" -> Still Gretzky

"32662:15806" -> Still Stockton



They only make the dates into a more recognizable format by putting the dates at the end instead of the beginning. I'm guessing they swapped Donovan for Ralston because:

a) Donovan only held the record for US soccer, not All of Major League Soccer

b) Donovan also hold the record for most goals at the same number of 57, making the intentions slightly confusing.

At this point I'm (and lots of others) are fairly certain this is the hint. Nothing here doesn't make sense to me.

[dellagd]

Unfortunately I've been getting behind on my reading of all the posts so im unsure as to whether anyone has seen this yet however did you notice that 2 of the numbers in the new hint are anagrams for the numbers in the old hint? Not to sure where/if this will lead to anything but just thought I'd throw it out there. Also 2 of the numbers stayed the same but that was pretty obvious.

Yes.

[raptaconehs]

Ok so I saw the Wikipedia edit which said that the 2014 FRC game was Step Up. Which might not mean anything, but I would like to put out there that someone in the original game hint thread mentioned how turning a picture looked like stairs. So maybe at the endgame you have to climb the stairs.

[Abhishek R]

Ok so I saw the Wikipedia edit which said that the 2014 FRC game was Step Up. Which might not mean anything, but I would like to put out there that someone in the original game hint thread mentioned how turning a picture looked like stairs. So maybe at the endgame you have to climb the stairs.

Don't trust Wikipedia. Some guy thought it would be funny to mess the page up, the game is not "Step Up."

[phantokidd7x]

I haven't browsed through the thread yet, but searching the number sets get some results vaguely.
61474:135 gets a Triple tachymetric indicator from Aerosup
12661:1963 shows codes for pipes
32662:15806 gets banking and revenue (maybe something with the budgets of the robots?)
I don't know what these could mean, but who knows.

[gavmac928]

I think that it's less about the assists, and more about the sports, especially because both the original and new first set of numbers was meant to be a soccer record. I think that it's either a game involving soccer balls, basketballs, and hockey pucks, or a game combining soccer and basketball on regolith surface (to be like hockey). Or, if the assists also mean coopertition, as some people have theorized, I think there would be the three different game pieces from the three sports, which all weigh different amounts, and the robots would have to use them to balance a scale, and if its balanced you get coopertition points. Although it would have to somehow start unbalanced, since otherwise you would get points without doing anything.

[atucker4072]

I think that it's less about the assists, and more about the sports, especially because both the original and new first set of numbers was meant to be a soccer record. I think that it's either a game involving soccer balls, basketballs, and hockey pucks, or a game combining soccer and basketball on regolith surface (to be like hockey). Or, if the assists also mean coopertition, as some people have theorized, I think there would be the three different game pieces from the three sports, which all weigh different amounts, and the robots would have to use them to balance a scale, and if its balanced you get coopertition points. Although it would have to somehow start unbalanced, since otherwise you would get points without doing anything.

It probably has something to do with one of the sports or the person that set the record. This is how lots of game hints have worked in the past. I mentioned earlier that maybe the game element was a stick if sort going off of the Wayne Gretzky assist record. He was also called the great one. That the stuff we need to look at, at this point.

[JohnSchneider]

I haven't browsed through the thread yet, but searching the number sets get some results vaguely.
61474:135 gets a Triple tachymetric indicator from Aerosup
12661:1963 shows codes for pipes
32662:15806 gets banking and revenue (maybe something with the budgets of the robots?)
I don't know what these could mean, but who knows.

You should read the thread ;)

[petrovbot]

does anyone think that when Frank said that Dr. Who was not a hint, he meant that it was not part of solving the hint given?(which was the birthdays/assists stuff) and it is now safe to speculate how the Doctor wants to chip in? Cause it seems to me that if we are going to be choosing between soccer, basketball and hockey, we have already played two of those which leaves hockey, the 1963, the start of Doctor who, the only game unplayed.

it does sound like people are leaning twards hockey, so am I just restating what people have already found out...?

anyway, there are my two cents,

[Gaff_Tape]

I know that I'm a little late to the party, but I noticed that the Doctor Who GIF

http://www.usfirst.org/sites/default/files/uploadedImages/Robotics_Programs/FRC/Game_and_Season__Info/2014/333.gif

Frank

*Doctor Who is not a hint. I just happen to enjoy the show.

[Please don’t take my saying Doctor Who is not a hint to mean it really is a hint. It’s really not a hint]

[[Please don’t take my saying Doctor Who really is not a hint to mean it really really is a hint. It’s really really not a hint]]

[[[etc]]]
is titled "333.gif". A cursory reverse image search does not return GIFs with the same title, so one could argue that "333" is deliberate.

In regard to the "Doctor Who is not a hint" stuff: The subject of Doctor Who is not a hint, but the GIF(and/or its title) could be.

Perhaps 333 only refers to the 3 sets of numbers or the 3 associated sports, but it could also be a teaser or something else.:confused:


Anyway, this is something that I haven't seen mentioned in this thread yet.

[joelg236]

I know that I'm a little late to the party, but I noticed that the Doctor Who GIF

is titled "333.gif". A cursory reverse image search does not return GIFs with the same title, so one could argue that "333" is deliberate.

In regard to the "Doctor Who is not a hint" stuff: The subject of Doctor Who is not a hint, but the GIF(and/or its title) could be.

Perhaps 333 only refers to the 3 sets of numbers or the 3 associated sports, but it could also be a teaser or something else.:confused:


Anyways, this is something that I haven't seen mentioned in this thread yet.

Surprisingly, I'm actually inclined to go with you here. The title could be automatically generated though, so there's no reason to get excited yet. A quick glance at other blog posts reveals a trend of word titles "ie. Frank%20Answers%20Fridays.jpg". Hmmm...

[loyal]

I think the hint has to do with repeating or redoing. First choice was a redo. The hint was a redo. The Dr Who pic. Is repeating over and over. The Dr Who as a hint denial over and over. In the TV show the Dr keeps coming back. Obamacare was a redo(thats putting it nicely). Some one in the first hint thread noticed that somehow the numbers were repeating.
If you add in the assist angle that could be a relay. So it repeats. Usually the simplest solution is the answer. This is as simple as my simple brain can come up with.

[mrnoble]

Surprisingly, I'm actually inclined to go with you here. The title could be automatically generated though, so there's no reason to get excited yet. A quick glance at other blog posts reveals a trend of word titles "ie. Frank%20Answers%20Fridays.jpg". Hmmm...

In all the hubbub over figuring out the "assist" clue(s), we seem to have completely forgotten the multitude of "3's" that have shown up in odd places. I'm also inclined to agree that this may not be a random jpg title. Nice work.

On the other hand, I'm discouraged at the number of recent posts that show people don't read:confused:

[JCharlton]

It should be noted that a hockey match has three periods.

Maybe this year Canadian teams will have a leg up?

[MooreteP]

I know that I'm a little late to the party, but I noticed that the Doctor Who GIF

is titled "333.gif". A cursory reverse image search does not return GIFs with the same title, so one could argue that "333" is deliberate.

In regard to the "Doctor Who is not a hint" stuff: The subject of Doctor Who is not a hint, but the GIF(and/or its title) could be.

Perhaps 333 only refers to the 3 sets of numbers or the 3 associated sports, but it could also be a teaser or something else.:confused:


Anyway, this is something that I haven't seen mentioned in this thread yet.

Excellent post.

It wasn't mentioned in this thread, but in the original game hint thread there was a discussion of a game that could be 3 teams versus 3 versus 3, rather than the 3 v 3 we have become accustomed to.

Some consider it problematic to be cycling 9 robots per match, especially in a district competition with 40 teams. Maybe they will make the matches longer, or increase the time between matches. Logistics hell, IMHO.

We had hints about 3's for 2005's Triple Play, where we transitioned from the 2 v 2 to 3 v 3. Also the "tetras" as a game piece. This also contained the first vision acquisition autonomous period, that was less than successful. It was also the last year without bumpers. There were some awesome collisions during the endgame frenzy of taking goals and running to the end zone.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ePwDtrthWE

Hence my thoughts: I like baseball (three bases), and hockey (three periods and three zones).

Baseball: Wiffle balls. Easy to collect and throw and purchase. No harm to spectators. Three bases on the field for an endgame battle of which alliance can control the bases.

Hockey: A goal at either end that can be defended by a goalie bot. You choose to defend the goal or pull the goalie to grab a base in the endgame that would allow the opposing alliance to easily score. Three periods, like in Aim High.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Vuwjse90AA

For some reason, I am still expecting the weight reduction for the robots on the field, but an increase in the withholding allowance to encourage modularity and strategic decision making based upon alliance composition.
Noodle-bot!

This is a reach, but a pic of the game field that includes two alliance goals and three "bases".

[Calvin Hartley]

I like the thought of the numerous 3s showing up, however I am a little lenient as it could easily be nothing. Regardless, does anyone have a list of how many relevant 3s have come up in this year's hints?

For now, I need to pack for my last camp out of the year.

[JohnSchneider]

Excellent post.

It wasn't mentioned in this thread, but in the original game hint thread there was a discussion of a game that could be 3 teams versus 3 versus 3, rather than the 3 v 3 we have become accustomed to.

Some consider it problematic to be cycling 9 robots per match, especially in a district competition with 40 teams. Maybe they will make the matches longer, or increase the time between matches. Logistics hell, IMHO.

We had hints about 3's for 2005's Triple Play, where we transitioned from the 2 v 2 to 3 v 3. Also the "tetras" as a game piece. This also contained the first vision acquisition autonomous period, that was less than successful. It was also the last year without bumpers. There were some awesome collisions during the endgame frenzy of taking goals and running to the end zone.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ePwDtrthWE

Hence my thoughts: I like baseball (three bases), and hockey (three periods and three zones).

Baseball: Wiffle balls. Easy to collect and throw and purchase. No harm to spectators. Three bases on the field for an endgame battle of which alliance can control the bases.

Hockey: A goal at either end that can be defended by a goalie bot. You choose to defend the goal or pull the goalie to grab a base in the endgame that would allow the opposing alliance to easily score. Three periods, like in Aim High.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Vuwjse90AA

For some reason, I am still expecting the weight reduction for the robots on the field, but an increase in the withholding allowance to encourage modularity and strategic decision making based upon alliance composition.
Noodle-bot!

This is a reach, but a pic of the game field that includes two alliance goals and three "bases".

FIRST has more recently attempted to create more accessible games where people outside of the FIRST-world are able to quickly pick up, understand, and enjoy the matches without having to explain complex scoring systems ("See you double the value of the tube the ubertube is under and then if you get the logo in the correct order you double the row and then there's these minibots").

With this basis in mind I don't think we'll see a game ran like aim high again. Its a little complex and doesn't keep a constant stream of offense occurring which seems to be part of the intent to bring in people from outside FIRST. As in all professional sports: Offense sells tickets.

This is why the thought of a hockey-esque game seems like a reasonable guess. Because its a mainstream and accessible sport and people in the media will understand "Our robot plays hockey".

The 3 probably stands for the number of years this season will take off your life :ahh:

[Schnabel]

Has anyone watched the Dr. Who gif 333 times? What if there's a secret picture at frame 333? :rolleyes:

[atucker4072]

On the other hand, I'm discouraged at the number of recent posts that show people don't read:confused:

Got back on and saw this and was like there goes all the work.

[rsisk]

Has anyone watched the Dr. Who gif 333 times? What if there's a secret picture at frame 333? :rolleyes:

You are bad!

[atucker4072]

Has anyone watched the Dr. Who gif 333 times? What if there's a secret picture at frame 333? :rolleyes:

Maybe at 333 it shows the game animation! Time to waste more of my day!

[atucker4072]

I definitely don't see three different periods. I could see it better as having 3 different zones. Maybe there are only certain zones that you can score in? This might lead to robots passing an object more and getting assits. That way robots don't have to go all the way across the field to score and they also can't score by going scoring from across the court.

[dellagd]

While I don't want to jump on the "Dr. Who Pic really is a hint" bandwagon, I do know that in a few sports, there is an offsides penalty. With zones like say hockey or lacrosse, having an offsides for too many robots in a zone at once might be interesting.

[atucker4072]

While I don't want to jump on the "Dr. Who Pic really is a hint" bandwagon, I do know that in a few sports, there is an offsides penalty. With zones like say hockey or lacrosse, having an offsides for too many robots in a zone at once might be interesting.

This is what I am more leaning towards at this point. However the only thing I see that could be an issue is that one team is stuck playing defense and no one wants to play defense for an entire match. That's where I think it seems more logical that you can only score in certain zones. However those zones are protected from defense mayne? Then there is a middle half where teams are blocking each other frok getting into the scoring zone?

[Littleboy]

Autonomous. Teleop. End Game. Those will be the three periods.

[Kevin Leonard]

There is no #3 hint.
Last year everyone was hyped up on the number 3 and it turned out to be nothing.

Last year the threes were more prevalent too.

[Bob Steele]

I think the idea of "offsides" could be explored here

Perhaps if there were three zones, a robot could not score if the object was passed from zone one through zone two directly into zone three where the goal would be. No dumping the object into the scoring zone. "Icing"

Or perhaps robots could not proceed the object into the scoring zone. (With a one line pass).

Hockey offsides rules ....

Or modifications thereof which would hasten end to end play but not without other robots participating.

This would seem to require a single playing piece though or it might be too difficult for referees

Discuss

[atucker4072]

There is no #3 hint.
Last year everyone was hyped up on the number 3 and it turned out to be nothing.

Last year the threes were more prevalent too.

You're probably right they are doing it to mess with us. However last year there were 3 levels on the pyramid... usually there are three different scoring values though. So that's pretty general...

[Kevin Thorp]

Maybe it's an adaptation of 43-Man Squamish?

http://www.mentalfloss.com/sites/default/legacy/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/squamish.jpg

[atucker4072]

Maybe it's an adaptation of 43-Man Squamish?

http://www.mentalfloss.com/sites/default/legacy/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/squamish.jpg

Now which 36 to get rid of?

[thefro526]

I think the idea of "offsides" could be explored here

Perhaps if there were three zones, a robot could not score if the object was passed from zone one through zone two directly into zone three where the goal would be. No dumping the object into the scoring zone. "Icing"

Or perhaps robots could not proceed the object into the scoring zone. (With a one line pass).

Hockey offsides rules ....

Or modifications thereof which would hasten end to end play but not without other robots participating.

This would seem to require a single playing piece though or it might be too difficult for referees

Discuss

For what it's worth, "Offsides" has been a penalty before. Interestingly enough, it was also in the last game to have distinct periods outside of the traditional Autonomous, Teleop, and End game structure.

In 2006, the 2-minute Tele-Op Period was divided into (3) 40 Second Periods, with the first period being the offensive period for the team that lost autonomous, the second period being the offensive period for the team that won autonomous, and the final period being a free for all. During a teams offensive period, all Three robots were allowed to be in their scoring zone, but only two of the opposing alliances machines were allowed to play defense, with one of the opponent machines being forced to stay in the opponents scoring zone. IIRC, if a team crossed the midfield line when they were not supposed to, they were considered "offsides" and a 10-point penalty was assessed.

In 2006, we also saw 'Assist' style movements by robots, specifically 195 feeding balls to 968, which later became known as the A-Bomb...

[brrian27]

Maybe assists will become a recorded statistic in matches and the alliance with the most assists gets a coopertition bonus?

You would get 2 qualification points for winning, 0 for losing, but 1 for having more assists than the opposing alliance!

That way, you can still easily win a match with no assists if you're good. And coopertition would be among your own team, so that would eliminate throwing matches or refusing to work with the other alliance.

Thoughts??

[atucker4072]

Maybe assists will become a recorded statistic in matches and the alliance with the most assists gets a coopertition bonus?

You would get 2 qualification points for winning, 0 for losing, but 1 for having more assists than the opposing alliance!

That way, you can still easily win a match with no assists if you're good. And coopertition would be among your own team, so that would eliminate throwing matches or refusing to work with the other alliance.

Thoughts??

This is a good idea to avoid a team not wanting to coopertate with the other alliance and still be able to help their ranking. Maybe the end game involves to parts. One with a coopertition system and the other for the other robot to do?

[Kevin Leonard]

Maybe assists will become a recorded statistic in matches and the alliance with the most assists gets a coopertition bonus?

You would get 2 qualification points for winning, 0 for losing, but 1 for having more assists than the opposing alliance!

That way, you can still easily win a match with no assists if you're good. And coopertition would be among your own team, so that would eliminate throwing matches or refusing to work with the other alliance.

Thoughts??

Now this seems possible. But how would assists be specifically tracked? That'd be annoying to keep track of unless it's a very obvious specific task.

[brrian27]

Now this seems possible. But how would assists be specifically tracked? That'd be annoying to keep track of unless it's a very obvious specific task.

Yeah that's the biggest problem I see. Maybe there will be less game pieces, like only one or two.

[atucker4072]

Yeah that's the biggest problem I see. Maybe there will be less game pieces, like only one or two.

Maybe larger balls like in overdrive? That would be easy to keep track of.

[mrnoble]

Maybe larger balls like in overdrive? That would be easy to keep track of.

Maybe not quite as big; beach ball sized?

[atucker4072]

Maybe not quite as big; beach ball sized?

Yeah I agree not quite as big... beach balls could be fun... also really hard to shoot.

[Woolly]

Yeah I agree not quite as big... beach balls could be fun... also really hard to shoot.

Well, as far as a hockey style game goes, how about Laser Discs?

[magnets]

Maybe not quite as big; beach ball sized?

No, we need bigger :D ! Think HUGE, like an 8 foot diameter ball, or 2002-esque goals that weigh many pounds.

Well, as far as a hockey style game goes, how about Laser Discs?

Like this (http://stayornay.com/tech/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/LaserDisc-DVD-Sizes-web.jpg)?

[pandamonium]

Assist could mean the robots don't actually do the scoring. This is the 10 year anniversary of First Frenzy. There was a game piece that only human players could score. The robots can move some goals and stack for bonus points.

[FIMAlumni]

Just a thought with the "assist", possibly there are specific red and blue (like 2008)game pieces that are introduced at the opposite side of the field then you score (2011 and 2013). The game pieces are designed in such a way that full court shooting is not possible like last year. The center of the field has a difficult to pass obstruction (like 2010) making a pass from the back to the front very rewarding, but not necessary if a robot can cross the obstruction. Another thought was bringing back 2007 ramps to lift robots, possibly an opponent for cooperation, thus assisting them.

Game name either Triple Assist or Risk Assist

[Woolly]

Like this (http://stayornay.com/tech/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/LaserDisc-DVD-Sizes-web.jpg)?

Exactly like that... though being that they're about 12 in and about the size of a record, FIRST could recycle the 11in discs from last year.

[Anthony4004]

Exactly like that... though being that they're about 12 in and about the size of a record, FIRST could recycle the 11in discs from last year.

I doubt that they would recycle the use of Frisbees because then all i have to really do is use last years robot.

[atucker4072]

Just a thought with the "assist", possibly there are specific red and blue (like 2008)game pieces that are introduced at the opposite side of the field then you score (2011 and 2013). The game pieces are designed in such a way that full court shooting is not possible like last year. The center of the field has a difficult to pass obstruction (like 2010) making a pass from the back to the front very rewarding, but not necessary if a robot can cross the obstruction. Another thought was bringing back 2007 ramps to lift robots, possibly an opponent for cooperation, thus assisting them.

Game name either Triple Assist or Risk Assist

This makes sense. The humans are the ones that assist the robot more so than previous years. I like the idea of eliminating the full court shooting possibilities. Yes it was a cool concept but watching a robot shoot full court every time got boring. Having humans interact more with the robot and not making it so they just throw and try to score seems like something the GDC would do.

[atucker4072]

I did hear somewhere about a member of the GDC saying he had a bunch if the game element all over his house. So it probably would be a ball.

[Jpass]

If the threes turn out to be relevant, I hope they call the game the "Trinity Thriller." Just throwing that out there.

Also, my biggest issue with the carpet pucks people have been posting is that they would wear over time if they're to be handled a lot, just look at the edges of Frisbees from last year. If we do see something like carpet hockey, I would expect game pieces like this, a toy I found in my house the other day. The ball bearing (could be any type of weighted ball) is nestled in a disc that moves across the ground as the ball rolls freely inside it. http://imgur.com/oyUPkGJ

Additionally, not much mention has been made of the possibility for multiple game piece sizes in the same game, which would incorporate the sorting that was so widely discussed in the other thread as well as the hockey and cooperation discussed in this one. Just a thought.

[Woolly]

I doubt that they would recycle the use of Frisbees because then all i have to really do is use last years robot.
What if there was a part of the rulebook that looked a bit like this...

<G44>DISC CARRYING– ROBOTS may not CARRY DISCS.

Violation: 2 PENALTIES for each CARRIED DISC.

<G45>Active DISC control- ROBOTS may not control DISC direction with active MECHANISMS above the BUMPER

Violation: PENALTY.

<G46>DISC Penetration Restriction– The DISC must not extend more than 3 inches inside the FRAME PERIMETER as defined in Rule <R19>. Incidental protrusions of the DISC within this boundary will not be penalized if the TEAM corrects the condition before resuming game play.

Violation: PENALTY for a basic infraction, plus a YELLOW CARD if no immediate attempt to remedy and/or the action is deemed intentional.

[atucker4072]

What if there was a part of the rulebook that looked a bit like this...

<G44>DISC CARRYING– ROBOTS may not CARRY DISCS.

Violation: 2 PENALTIES for each CARRIED DISC.

<G45>Active DISC control- ROBOTS may not control DISC direction with active MECHANISMS above the BUMPER

Violation: PENALTY.

<G46>DISC Penetration Restriction– The DISC must not extend more than 3 inches inside the FRAME PERIMETER as defined in Rule <R19>. Incidental protrusions of the DISC within this boundary will not be penalized if the TEAM corrects the condition before resuming game play.

Violation: PENALTY for a basic infraction, plus a YELLOW CARD if no immediate attempt to remedy and/or the action is deemed intentional.

So basically something like hockey? Teams couldn't shoot disks and would pass them around on the floor? This seems like fun! However it is unlikely they would use the same scoring element 2 years in a row

[Jacob Bendicksen]

Keep in mind that Frank said a few weeks back that something on the field was "impressive." What do you think it could be?

I'm thinking there's something tall out there, though I'm not sure what form it'll take. Perhaps you have to score the game piece in some grand tower in the center of the field, then have to do something on it for the endgame?

[thursam]

<G45>Active DISC control- ROBOTS may not control DISC direction with active MECHANISMS above the BUMPER

Violation: PENALTY.

If they did use frisbees, and if they did have a rule like this, then couldn't that bring back the theory of air hockey? Someone mentioned it a while ago, and it was kind of dismissed, but when you bring up something like this... Couldn't it be possible? I mean, Ultimate Ascent was a pretty random task, considering FIRST's history and love of spherical objects.

Air hockey could also tie in the assist aspect as well. All three robots are going to have to work together to stop the other team from scoring - as far as my idea goes, anyway.

Edit:
So basically something like hockey? Teams couldn't shoot disks and would pass them around on the floor? This seems like fun! However it is unlikely they would use the same scoring element 2 years in a row

[atucker4072]

Keep in mind that Frank said a few weeks back that something on the field was "impressive." What do you think it could be?

I'm thinking there's something tall out there, though I'm not sure what form it'll take. Perhaps you have to score the game piece in some grand tower in the center of the field, then have to do something on it for the endgame?

This is true... I know that there was speculation of maybe it being a set of stairs. It seems that there has a been a pattern of the scoring areas being on opposite sides, one for each team. So maybe the center piece is for endgame?

[Derpancakes]

Has anyone watched the Dr. Who gif 333 times? What if there's a secret picture at frame 333? :rolleyes:

Nope. I extracted the frames. There are only eleven, so it's just as it appears. I doubt the number of frames could be a hint?

[Anthony4004]

So basically something like hockey? Teams couldn't shoot disks and would pass them around on the floor? This seems like fun! However it is unlikely they would use the same scoring element 2 years in a row

The only things I see with that is then all the robot would really do is drive around pushing....that's REALLY boring, just saying, and not very interesting for spectators.

[Anthony4004]

Keep in mind that Frank said a few weeks back that something on the field was "impressive." What do you think it could be?

I'm thinking there's something tall out there, though I'm not sure what form it'll take. Perhaps you have to score the game piece in some grand tower in the center of the field, then have to do something on it for the endgame?

It could be the field in general? I really think that the fields look impressive every year. Well...most of the time.

[MooreteP]

Wow, have read the whole thread and I love it.

Lots of new members taking an active role in the discussion with a few missteps. Just like most of us will be going through on Saturday.

Coopertition goes back to 2001, where four teams (2v2) worked to produce the highest score in the shortest amount of time.
There was a co-opertition bridge in the middle, and movable goals that could be filled with small balls and capped with a large bonus ball.
You got extra points for all teams using the E-Stop before the match ended.
http://www.wildstang.org/main/history.php?year=2001
They used to have a video of the highest score, but I can't find it now.

Happy New Year everyone. Enjoy the challenge.
Failure brings the opportunity for improvement.
Patience is a virtue.
In life, you're .500
That's a baseball reference. :)

[EricH]

Lots of new members taking an active role in the discussion with a few missteps.

Coopertition goes back to 2001, where four teams (2v2) worked to produce the highest score in the shortest amount of time.
There was a co-opertition bridge in the middle, and movable goals that could be filled with small balls and capped with a large bonus ball.
You got extra points for all teams using the E-Stop before the match ended.


Speaking of missteps...

--2001 (Diabolical Dynamics) was 4v0, not 2v2.
--Bonus balls were +points for whichever robot(s) got their balls on top of the goals--each robot had its own color. That part was just about right.
--The bridge was distinctly different from coopertition bridges. Namely, it tended to tip to one side or the other, not return to center. Also, you got points for balancing on it.
--And finally... That wasn't "extra points" for the E-stop. That was a multiplier. How big was it? Depended when you stopped all 4 robots, but it was between 1 and 2 if memory serves, with tripping it in 30 seconds or less being the highest multiplier. This particular year is the single reason that the manual clarifies that the use of the E-stop will not affect match score or duration--and has done that every single year since 2002.

Coopertition didn't really show up in the open again until 2009's rule <G14>, then 2010 in bigger form. It was buried in the rankings the whole time--some multiple of the loser's score added to yours as first tiebreaker, or something like that.

[MooreteP]

Speaking of missteps...

--2001 (Diabolical Dynamics) was 4v0, not 2v2.
--Bonus balls were +points for whichever robot(s) got their balls on top of the goals--each robot had its own color. That part was just about right.
--The bridge was distinctly different from coopertition bridges. Namely, it tended to tip to one side or the other, not return to center. Also, you got points for balancing on it.
--And finally... That wasn't "extra points" for the E-stop. That was a multiplier. How big was it? Depended when you stopped all 4 robots, but it was between 1 and 2 if memory serves, with tripping it in 30 seconds or less being the highest multiplier. This particular year is the single reason that the manual clarifies that the use of the E-stop will not affect match score or duration--and has done that every single year since 2002.


That cooperation bridge also had a "flat spot" in the middle. It could be balanced like in 2012. Teams that could manipulate it were useful in the final endgame balance.
It was 2v2 as the color of the large bonus balls determined who got that multiplier.
I was trying to keep the description simple. Bonus multiplier = extra points.
I felt that describing actual scoring metric would have obscured my intent to recall the first instance of co-opertition.

Thank you for the clarification.

[Kevin Ray]

What about three different field pieces; a soccer ball, basketball and a disc (frisbee or puck)? Each team would score it's specialty, relying on the other ally to score a different field piece. Granted most teams will be designing a bot to score at least two, but you would most likely be relying on the "assistance" of your ally. This plays to the GDC's desire to make the game easy for rookies (the games have already been played--thus the robot designs are already there) yet the veteran or more capable teams will be challenged to design a robot which could do all three well.

All three sports represented and "assist" is utilized?

[EricH]

It was 2v2 as the color of the large bonus balls determined who got that multiplier.


Nope, 4V0. One red, one blue, one green, one yellow. The color determined who got the extra points (not a multiplier for these). One alliance, with some elements to allow up to two teams to do better than the alliance.

And if you wanted the first instance of coopertition...

Try Double Trouble (1999) or Coopertition FIRST (2000). 2001 just happens to be the one described in the patent application for Coopertition.

[MooreteP]

Additionally, 2001, Diabolical Dynamics was an interesting game and the most in the spirit of the idea of co-opertition.
Like Lunacy, it was not the most popular, but I thought it worked on a different level.
When the term co-opertition resurrected in 2012, we winced.

Here is what would happen in 2001:
The four teams involved were given time to conference and plan before their match.
They would plan out a strategy and then each team would do their own thing. It was a big fail for most matches. Selfishness would defeat the common good.

Robots that could balance the goals on the bridge were key, and as a regional progressed, they would gain the respect and upper hand in the pre-match conferences that would lead to co-opertition.
Filling the goals with the small balls and placing the bonus ball on top really increased their moment of inertia, which made the bridge balance even trickier. Many bonus balls fell of the tops of the towers as the bridge teeter-tottered.

Here is some video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-wy3uRL9M0
Here is the highest score in the nation video that I was looking for earlier:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vsp2LjfJHsA
You can see a countdown clock for the bonus multiplier. 3x, 2.5x, 2x, 1.5x.

From a game theory standpoint it was fascinating. Team's egos had to be checked at the door for success.

I don't think we will see a return to that aspect this year. But the matches were on schedule with that time bonus multiplier.

[MooreteP]

Nope, 4V0. One red, one blue, one green, one yellow. The color determined who got the extra points (not a multiplier for these). One alliance, with some elements to allow up to two teams to do better than the alliance.

And if you wanted the first instance of coopertition...

Try Double Trouble (1999) or Coopertition FIRST (2000). 2001 just happens to be the one described in the patent application for Coopertition.

I still view it as having a 2v2 aspect in that whoever could get their color bonus ball on top would have a higher score.
Nonetheless, I like the 4v0 from a game theory standpoint, so i will concede the argument to you.

I don't see how 1999 or 2000 (in spite of it's title) used co-opertition.
In regards to the "assist" aspect of the game hint, I am curious how co-opertition will rear its head this year.

[yarden.saa]

The real hint is that you should have check the FIRST website. They didn't announced it as previous years but they publushed the KoP dimensions and weight. (http://www3.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/kit-of-parts)
The black tote that every team gets weights 60 pounds (12 pound more than last year).
The andymark drive train is 33" long (3 inch longer than last year).
Another thing:
In the FIRST Choice website they say what is or isn't in the KOP.
this year there will not be: window motors, window motor coupling, window motor connector, soloneid breakout, fans...


Bigger robots, big game pieces/heavy game pieces.

[rsisk]

...
In the FIRST Choice website they say what is or isn't in the KOP.
this year there will not be: window motors, window motor coupling, window motor connector, soloneid breakout, fans...
.

How did you come to this conclusion?

Just because something is on the FC site doesn't mean it will not be included in the KOP, right?

[mrnoble]

The real hint is that you should have check the FIRST website. They didn't announced it as previous years but they publushed the KoP dimensions and weight. (http://www3.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/kit-of-parts)
The black tote that every team gets weights 60 pounds (12 pound more than last year).
The andymark drive train is 33" long (3 inch longer than last year).
Another thing:
In the FIRST Choice website they say what is or isn't in the KOP.
this year there will not be: window motors, window motor coupling, window motor connector, soloneid breakout, fans...


Bigger robots, big game pieces/heavy game pieces.

Happy New Year!

My experience has been that the black tote contains donated items; if it weighs more than last year, my guess would be that means more companies are donating products.

I can't find anything on the FirstChoice website that tells us what is or isn't in the KOP. I think you are mistaken.

[lsbd4]

I believe the numbers reflect the size and dimensions of the object used in game play. Possibly a pool noodle approximately 12 inches long.

[mrnoble]

I believe the numbers reflect the size and dimensions of the object used in game play. Possibly a pool noodle approximately 12 inches long.

The numbers have been solved. Please read some of the earlier posts. :ahh: They refer to sports figures with record numbers of "assists" in their respective sports.

[yarden.saa]

How did you come to this conclusion?

Just because something is on the FC site doesn't mean it will not be included in the KOP, right?

example is attached:)

[DonRotolo]

if it weighs more than last year, my guess would be that means more companies are donating products....or companies are donating more products, or we get a game piece (cinderblock) in each kit!

[mrnoble]

example is attached:)

I am drawing the conclusion from this that everything in FirstChoice is not in the KOP. This was, I think, part of the assumed purpose of FirstChoice in the first place; that we could choose from a selection of items to augment our team's stock of supplies with things we didn't already have 20 of. It doesn't mean the Denso motors will not be allowed for the 2014 game.

[Pendulum^-1]

I believe the numbers reflect the size and dimensions of the object used in game play. Possibly a pool noodle approximately 12 inches long.

Here is a link to a single post that explains the numbers quite well:

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1318570&postcount=147

To get a more complete summary, search this thread for "Gretzky."
Cuts your reading from 320+ posts to about 15.

I suspect that many who have not yet read the 1000+ posts on the multiple Game Hints threads would appreciate it if those with more experience on this subject would kindly guide the late comers to a good summarization post or posts (or a search key), instead of just simply telling people to burn an hour to figure out where the needle in the haystack is located.

Similar to what we frequently do when providing technical details for robots.

[AllenGregoryIV]

I am drawing the conclusion from this that everything in FirstChoice is not in the KOP.

How can you draw that conclusion? Which items are also in the kit of parts are clearly identified on the item pages in FIRST Choice.

Here is an example
http://firstchoicebyandymark.com/en/fc14-090

[mrnoble]

How can you draw that conclusion? Which items are also in the kit of parts are clearly identified on the item pages in FIRST Choice.

Here is an example
http://firstchoicebyandymark.com/en/fc14-090

I am drawing the conclusion that I need to wake up more before I begin posting on Chief Delphi, especially on New Year's Day.

My apologies for being less than helpful this morning.

You are correct; the FirstChoice website clearly does say that some items are going to be in the KOP, either the black or green tote, while many items will not be in either tote.

What I meant to express is, I don't think the listings on FirstChoice tell us much one way or another about the game at this point. Many of the items on FirstChoice were once included in the KOP. The idea behind FirstChoice, as I have always understood it, is to give us the option of restocking the things we use, or adding things we would like to have in stock, while avoiding adding more things we already have more than enough of. The fact that Denso motors will not be in either tote doesn't tell me that they won't be useful, or that they will be.

Thanks for putting up with me. Happy New Year!

[Steven Donow]

I am drawing the conclusion that I need to wake up more before I begin posting on Chief Delphi, especially on New Year's Day.

My apologies for being less than helpful this morning.

You are correct; the FirstChoice website clearly does say that some items are going to be in the KOP, either the black or green tote, while many items will not be in either tote.

What I meant to express is, I don't think the listings on FirstChoice tell us much one way or another about the game at this point. Many of the items on FirstChoice were once included in the KOP. The idea behind FirstChoice, as I have always understood it, is to give us the option of restocking the things we use, or adding things we would like to have in stock, while avoiding adding more things we already have more than enough of. The fact that Denso motors will not be in either tote doesn't tell me that they won't be useful, or that they will be.

Thanks for putting up with me. Happy New Year!

A lot of stuff in FIRST choice is just excess inventory of AndyMark's/other companies donating. Such as the IR Transmitter (http://firstchoicebyandymark.com/en/fc14-004) from 2008 that's been in FIRST Choice the last two years; nothing's happened with it.

[Schnabel]

or we get a game piece (cinderblock) in each kit!

I knew it!

[GaryVoshol]

...or we get a game piece (cinderblock) in each kit!
or a couple gallons of water. :rolleyes:

[Steven Donow]

or a couple gallons of water. :rolleyes:

As a reminder to keep hydrated and remain healthy through build season, right? :D

[Jay Burnett]

So.... after a couple days and 300 something posts, i think we can draw some conclusions here.

-Hockey game: probably with a roller hockey ball.
-The rebirth of copertition: reference to assists

well done.... well done...
(And yes; I did read the whole thread :rolleyes: )

[Qbot2640]

And now that I've read the entire thread, I feel qualified to contribute my opinions:

(1) As a huge hockey fan, no-one would be more happy to see a hockey-based game than me - but I don't feel it this year: I predict a departure from overt "sports related" themes this year...hockey was only one of three sports referenced in the hint (and I believe the hint's representation would be more evenly based)...and I cringe to think of the slapshot speeds some of the teams would achieve, and the associated safety concerns. The real focus of the hint is "assists". Also note, there was a First Choice "Hat Trick" comment, but also a "Home Run / Grand Slam" comment...did anyone pick up a similar soccer related comment?

I feel obliged to point out that one poster identified Wayne Gretzky as "the greatest hockey player of all time" - and while he does hold most of the leagues offensive records, Mario Lemieux (the actual greatest player of all time) would have exceeded all of these records if he would have had anywhere near the lineup that Gretzky enjoyed for most of his career...but I digress

(2) Given the idea of "assisting" many posters have jumped to "coopertition". Assists, in the three contexts presented, are "intra-team" where coopertition (in the 2012 application at least) was "inter-alliance". I would predict some amplification of points where multiple robots on the same alliance sequentially possess the game piece.

(2b) I agree that keeping track of passes would be difficult, so what if it is done automatically...some type of team specific sensor, or perhaps each team passes it's "team specific" game piece to another allowing two or three game pieces to be scored simultaneously (a "pass" being represented by an "accumulation".

Just my 2 cents (except the factual Lemieux part).

[MooreteP]

And now that I've read the entire thread, I feel qualified to contribute my opinions:

(2) Given the idea of "assisting" many posters have jumped to "coopertition". Assists, in the three contexts presented, are "intra-team" where coopertition (in the 2012 application at least) was "inter-alliance". I would predict some amplification of points where multiple robots on the same alliance sequentially possess the game piece.

(2b) I agree that keeping track of passes would be difficult, so what if it is done automatically...some type of team specific sensor, or perhaps each team passes it's "team specific" game piece to another allowing two or three game pieces to be scored simultaneously (a "pass" being represented by an "accumulation".

Just my 2 cents (except the factual Lemieux part).

I think you may have the co-opertition idea down for this year, it may be between teams on an alliance and may involve an assist to score.

If the assist using a game piece is to be obvious, then a larger than usual game piece may be involved for visual confirmation. Or there will be electronic tracking as you suggest.

Electronic tracking with real time scoring could become a nightmare. Reference the faulty load cells in the goals and the manual counting that was resorted to last year.

They could also restrict robots to "zones" and/or require assists across a "blue line".

Or maybe there will be robots lifting each other like in Rebound Rumble, or lifting (assisting) them up to a high platform to score.

Whatever the game, hopefully it will encourage diverse solutions to the "problem".

BTW, Sidney Crosby will challenge for the greatest and this year's Winter Classic is awesome. $0.02

[bhrobot]

Perhaps instead of visual tracking, maybe there are vertical hoops with a sensor to track passes between teams and only the passes between these hoops will count. Just an idea.

[rakar]

Just getting in on the wild guess lottery before Saturday...

So it looks like Hockey on a three sectioned field like Breakaway so that teams can cross the zones but not easily. Maybe the barricades would be small for a robot but big for a game piece.

There might also be a gap in the middle of each barrier, like Breakaway, but, in addition, to emphasize the assist idea and keep everyone in the game at all times, there might be a lane down each side of the field (one for red, one for blue) where a puck could be fired down field (maybe the entire length.) If the shot is good - the puck travels long and straight - a robot of the correct color could get the puck and shoot it in. Otherwise it might hit the wall or a barricade and bounce out of the lane for anyone to get. Previous rules about opposing robots entering these lanes might exist - they might be exclusion zones or robots might only be restricted from contacting the "owning" alliance's robots in it.

I think the game piece might be carpet pucks instead of balls so that a good robot could shoot the length of the field and leave the puck in the lane. Of course balls would prevent a possible "build up" problem.

As with Breakaway there might also be very specific limits on how a puck could be struck, carried, controlled or thrown.

This is more fun than PowerBall (only because I know I won't win that either!)

[Squillo]

Don't trust Wikipedia. Some guy thought it would be funny to mess the page up, the game is not "Step Up."

I just have to respond to this without (I admit! mea culpa!) reading the subsequent posts. But has anyone considered that the GDC might have a <gasp> leak? That this "FakeGDC" might actually have some accurate information, and taking down the edit was just "damage control"?

I mean, there was that apparent/possible staircase.

And I have another idea that also fits into the "assists" angle, which I will not post until I have read ALL the posts. So, I'm going back to it...

[dellagd]

(2) Given the idea of "assisting" many posters have jumped to "coopertition". Assists, in the three contexts presented, are "intra-team" where coopertition (in the 2012 application at least) was "inter-alliance". I would predict some amplification of points where multiple robots on the same alliance sequentially possess the game piece.

Hmm. Never thought of it like that, but you're right. That being said, having to rely on my randomly selected alliance partners in the qualifiers for this scares me greatly.

[Squillo]

OK, now I *have* read all the posts (in this thread, anyway). So here's my two cents.

A fellow team member pointed out that there are some interesting new items being sold by AndyMark this year, including a plethora of smaller-sized wheels and some kind of lazy-susan turntable thing that can support up to 300 lbs. That got us thinking that maybe there will be a reason for robots to be smaller or lower (the wheels) and maybe one of those reasons would be that it could be more easily lifted/supported by another robot (hence the need to bear >100 lbs.).

To me, this fits in with the "assist" angle, as in one robot "assisting" another to do something by lifting it up to do it. There might be choices to be made, such as to design your robot to be a "lifter" or a "liftee"; assisting/coopertition (robots on the same alliance OR on different alliances could lift each other), and possibly climbing something (a staircase?). Also, a staircase would be something "impressive". I would think this would probably be an end-game thing, based on recent years - they tend to be trending toward an autonomous that is similar to teleop (hanging tubes, shooting balls/frisbees), a teleop that involves repetitive scoring possibilities, and an endgame that involves lifting or balancing something, a challenge different from the main scoring paradigm (lifting a minibot, lifting/balancing robots on the bridge, lifting robots up the pyramid - wasn't there some kind of hanging thing in 2010 too? I forget...)

The assisting could come into the scoring (maybe the only way to score in a high goal would be for two robots to cooperate?) or the endgame lifting/balancing phase, or both.

3 days to go!

[Steven Donow]

OK, now I *have* read all the posts (in this thread, anyway). So here's my two cents.

A fellow team member pointed out that there are some interesting new items being sold by AndyMark this year, including a plethora of smaller-sized wheels and some kind of lazy-susan turntable thing that can support up to 300 lbs. That got us thinking that maybe there will be a reason for robots to be smaller or lower (the wheels) and maybe one of those reasons would be that it could be more easily lifted/supported by another robot (hence the need to bear >100 lbs.).


The smaller wheels are mainly Andymark expanding/adding FTC products. And the turntables are just leftover from FIRST Choice and/or them expanding into a larger variety of products.

FWIW, the odds that the folks at Andymark have significant knowledge of the game are incredibly slim*


*If something is required of the kitbot, I'm sure they know it, ie. 2013 having a smaller frame, 2010 having that lift kit add-on

[skimoose]

The 12 pound difference in the black tote is interesting. As previously mentioned, it could just reflect new donors products in the KOP. Since the black tote has been slowly dwindling in the past few years, some added items would be appreciated.

As far as the 3 inch difference in the AndyMark KOP drive box, bigger robots is inconclusive. It more likely indicates a "new" or different design for the KOP drive base and thus different packaging. The frame may be designed to allow for flexibility (different lengths/widths) within the frame perimeter rule. I think the 2013 perimeter rule is here to stay.

Bigger game pieces is always a possibility. We haven't had a large exercise ball for several years now and with the smaller perimeter rule that would present some challenges. I still think the trend will continue and it will be a ball game. Doubler balls similar to 2004 FIRST Frenzy haven't been seen lately. Come to think of it, neither have truly mobile goals (the trailers in Lunacy were still tethered to a robot), which would be perfect for a capping doubler bonus ball.

Heavy game pieces is not very likely. Safety is high on the GDC's list of game specifications. A heavy game piece that has to be lifted could be a safety issue. The Tetras from Triple Play is a perfect example. They weighed several pounds each, and this weight lifted by robots had an impact on their CG causing several to tip over, occasionally partially out of the field, a hazard to all near the field. Also, dropping tetras while attempting to score caused them to occasionally fall outside the field. Our human player took a falling tetra in the thigh while returning from loading the robot. She wasn't hurt badly, just a big bruise, but FIRST hasn't used anything similarly heavy or hard since Triple Play.

Also, while Frank clearly said that the Dr. Who reference in the Redux clue wasn't a clue, that is the second reference to Dr. Who by Frank this preseason. He may be a big fan, many of us are, but two references isn't a coincidence. What is the real fascination with the Time Lords? :confused:

The real hint is that you should have check the FIRST website. They didn't announced it as previous years but they publushed the KoP dimensions and weight. (http://www3.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/kit-of-parts)
The black tote that every team gets weights 60 pounds (12 pound more than last year).
The andymark drive train is 33" long (3 inch longer than last year).
Another thing:
In the FIRST Choice website they say what is or isn't in the KOP.
this year there will not be: window motors, window motor coupling, window motor connector, soloneid breakout, fans...


Bigger robots, big game pieces/heavy game pieces.

[Christopher149]

Don't trust Wikipedia. Some guy thought it would be funny to mess the page up, the game is not "Step Up."

It's also definitely not Lunacy II: Electric Hocky Boogaloo (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FIRST_Robotics_Competition&diff=588528695&oldid=588458949) (especially since they couldn't spell Hockey).

[Oblarg]

I, for one, would welcome the return of oversized game pieces. The track balls from 2008 are far-and-away my favorite FRC game piece that I've worked with (in fact, 2008 is far-and-away my favorite FRC game).

[Jengles]

In some sports (one being hockey), scoring a goal and having an assist are both counted the same as a point. This demonstrates for the importance of not only scoring for your own team but also inter team cooperation. FIRST constantly stresses working together such as the theme of gracious professionalism. This idea of working together was prevalent in "Rebound Rumble".

Obvious examples include Coopertition points for balancing on the bridge with the other team (these points did not affect the score of the match only the seeding ranks). The use of the Coopertition points to determine rankings though upset a lot of people because it did not always properly represent teams and their robot's capabilities. The game also allowed for balancing with your own team as an end game way to get more match points. There were still more chances to work with your teammates in this game. There was in the autonomous period, what became the common practice of reversing balls out of one's robot and into another robot for more autonomous points. And during the teleop period, some teams had robots that were so good at shooting their biggest problem was they would score all of the basketballs on their side and have no more to shoot. They solved this problem with teamwork by having robots go shoot balls across the field for them, thus allowing them to have a bigger supply to shoot.

In "Ultimate Ascent", because of all the hate of the Coopertition points they were removed. This was a huge blow to the attempt to teach students to work with even those you’re competing against to become better. The game itself even lost all the sense of teamwork that was heavily promoted the year prior. In its teleop, the way to maximize points was to have all the robots go their separate ways in order to shoot from different locations. Even the end game was a solitary play; it went from balancing with a teammate to, "I have this side of the pyramid you have yours, don't get in my way". This is not the attitude that FIRST is trying to condone; therefore, they will try to make teamwork an important aspect of the game.

All of this is why I think that this year they will make assists equal in value to ‘goals’ (or whatever scoring is this year) in respect to match points. Coopertition still won’t return because of popular dislike of them though. By doing this they will promote working together, but also allow some teams to have a chance of winning by scoring alone if their teammates are of no use. If this is true then the hint interpretation which shows the records of assists for various sports would seem plausible. If that interpretation is plausible, then the game this year would logically follow to being hockey. Also the fact that this year is the United States 75th anniversary for ice hockey, helps further the reason why it would be a good year to make a hockey game. It’s just a theory. A game theory.

[atucker4072]

This is leaning more towards a hockey based game at this point... what if it took the obstacles of breakaway and the coopertition from rebound rumble? This would make the basketball and soccer assit records come in. Maybe there would be a certain area where you could shoot a "puck" the length of the field. But it could easily be defended by the opposing alliance. Then bring back coopertition between just one alliance. Putting obstacles would definitely make it more interesting than just an open floor. Also if the game element was put in at one point a robot could pass it to the teammate to score quicker.

[Joseph Lewis]

A lot of people so far have been thinking that the Coopertition factor will have to be between opposing alliances, or assisting members of the same alliance. Let us not forget 2001 where all the robots played on the same alliance for the highest score, with the clock as their opponent. Perhaps we see the return of something like this? This would promote assisting each other, but not make it a necessity. Theoretically, 1 robot could perform just as well as 4 in 2001, but having 4 good robots made scoring high even easier. I feel like this is more likely to happen than having to pass objects between alliance members because it reduces the oh-no-my-alliance-members-are-box-bots scenario.

And, by the way, Coopertition was first introduced in 2000, with Coopertition FIRST, not in 2012 with the bridges. 2012 just seems to be the only game people can remember because Coopertition played such a big part in the tournament outcome.

EDIT: was rereading the thread and found a discussion of this 2 pages back. Not meaning to bring up a dead topic, but I feel like we dismissed this with too little thought. Too much of the discussion was geared towards the rules and regulations of the 2001 game and not enough of the possibilities for adapting it for the assisting idea in 2014.

[RobotDoktor]

Well I finally made it through the whole thread and feel like posting my thoughts.

I think that the game will most likely be hockey. It matches the hint, as hockey is the only of the three mentioned games which has not already been done. Being a sport would follow the pattern so far (while ultimate Frisbee is a sport, the actual game was very little like it).

I believe it will be played with balls, similar to street/field hockey. This follows the ball/no ball pattern and matches the GDC's expressed desire to move towards more common scoring elements (as opposed to carpet pucks etc).

I think that while assists is a main part of the hint, coopertition points are not necessarily coming back. More likely is an increased emphasis on strategy/cooperation between teams in alliances. As suggested before, getting ranking points for assists would promote teamwork and fit well with a hockey game. At the same time, the new KoP chassis enhances modularity, allowing one robot to adapt to multiple positions or roles.

*Edit: regarding the number three. It could be a red herring, as it has come up multiple times in the past without being significant. As someone already mentioned, hockey is played in three periods. More interestingly, it is played with three inch diameter pucks. Likewise, street hockey balls are usually of three inch diameter,

[pandamonium]

Assists - soccer basketball hockey

Breakaway - we could only contact balls within a few inches of the robot and only so high.
Rebound rumble - 3 balls per a robot.
Lunacy - trailers - movable goals
Assisting robots can have x balls at anyone time scoring robots can only have one at a time. this is hinting at a flexible limit on gamepieces. Merging the two types of ball games low quantity and high quantity.

[jwfoss]

I don't normally post in these threads but I am feeling nostalgic.
Maybe all of this talk of hockey is in reference to the "puck" (http://www.mvrt.com/images2/manuals/1999game.jpg) from the 1999 FRC Game Double Trouble (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Trouble_(FIRST)).

[Dad1279]

I don't normally post in these threads but I am feeling nostalgic.
Maybe all of this talk of hockey is in reference to the "puck" (http://www.mvrt.com/images2/manuals/1999game.jpg) from the 1999 FRC Game Double Trouble (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Trouble_(FIRST)).

1999: 8 Regionals and Champs at Epcot...

I think it's time we will see a return of multiple size balls and moveable goals :D

Great detective work on the 'assists'.... in 48 hours we'll know what it means.

[iceBird10]

Return of the Coopertition bonus!:D

Oh please no.

[atucker4072]

Oh please no.

They wouldn't do it the same as in 2012 due to negative feedback. There would probably be no qualifying points involved.

[JohnSchneider]

They wouldn't do it the same as in 2012 due to negative feedback. There would probably be no qualifying points involved.

Its been a while but didn't the survey results from 2012 come back fairly strongly in FAVOR of the coopertition bonus? This will be the first game designed with those survey results to pull from so if it did get strong support youll probably see it again...

But I've slept since that blog post and its probably on the old shut down blog.

[atucker4072]

Its been a while but didn't the survey results from 2012 come back fairly strongly in FAVOR of the coopertition bonus? This will be the first game designed with those survey results to pull from so if it did get strong support youll probably see it again...

But I've slept since that blog post and its probably on the old shut down blog.

I've mainly heard that they came back negative. I could be wrong though. Regardless they probably did restructure it do to some negative feedback. That is if they are bringing it back.

[JohnSchneider]

I've mainly heard that they came back negative. I could be wrong though. Regardless they probably did restructure it do to some negative feedback. That is if they are bringing it back.

Did you hear that from the blog or word of mouth. Because I remember them coming back positive. Even minibots got positive feedback.

[atucker4072]

Did you hear that from the blog or word of mouth. Because I remember them coming back positive. Even minibots got positive feedback.

I heard it multiple times here on CD. They at least had to get some negative feedback that helped change it. The point is it would have had to change even a bit to make it better fit the ranking system. I know lots of teams did not like the fact that coopertition was just as good as wining a match.

[dmaciel10123]

So, while reading through this thread I've noticed that the norm agreement is "coopertition", which I would definitely say is true, backed up by the numbers. But I believe we're missing a form of "Assisting" and "passing". Could it possibly be a "King of the Hill" or "Kill The Carrier" style game?

My thought is that Alliances might be required to hold a game piece for a certain period of time, or may score points based on how long they hold it at a time. Also, with the reference to "3", 3 alliances, also being coopertition because then two alliances would need to work together to stop the other alliance from scoring.

Just a thought.

(Edit: I just realized that this would end up being a rather violent and damaging game, and teams would probably have ways to hold the game piece where it would never be dropped.)

So, instead of a game piece, possibly an area of the field.

[heisenburger]

I was checking the wikipedia page and I guess the new game is called "Assist Attack". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIRST_Robotics_Competition#Games

[roboryan]

Could it possibly be a "King of the Hill" or "Kill The Carrier" style game?
this really goes against FIRST values but the game would be fun

and here is encrypted manual
http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/blog-information-for-2014-the-what-when-where-and-how

[Niezrecki]

(while ultimate Frisbee is a sport, the actual game was very little like it).


Actually. Ultimate Ascent is more based off of Frisbee Golf than Ultimate Frisbee. The baskets at the top of the pyramid are almost identical to the goals in Frisbee Golf.

Here is an example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=l0z-QzUG_Eo#t=401

[Qbot2640]

Disclaimer - partially off topic post:

Its been a while but didn't the survey results from 2012 come back fairly strongly in FAVOR of the coopertition bonus? This will be the first game designed with those survey results to pull from so if it did get strong support youll probably see it again...

But I've slept since that blog post and its probably on the old shut down blog.

I've been holding back - but feel the need to say it is my impression (more than opinion, but less than documented fact) that the "coopertition bridge" is viewed much more positively throughout the FIRST community as a whole, than it is on CD. My team loved that aspect of the game, as did many of the teams we "hang with". Most the other teams we speak to were at most neutral on the idea.

Now the pure opinion part of it: CD is much more heavily populated with the "Heavy Hitters" (so to speak) and thus, would be more likely to have viewed coopertition as some kind of "watering down" of the rankings. Again...opinion, not indictment...I love you all!!!

[cmrnpizzo14]

Disclaimer - partially off topic post:



I've been holding back - but feel the need to say it is my impression (more than opinion, but less than documented fact) that the "coopertition bridge" is viewed much more positively throughout the FIRST community as a whole, than it is on CD. My team loved that aspect of the game, as did many of the teams we "hang with". Most the other teams we speak to were at most neutral on the idea.

Now the pure opinion part of it: CD is much more heavily populated with the "Heavy Hitters" (so to speak) and thus, would be more likely to have viewed coopertition as some kind of "watering down" of the rankings. Again...opinion, not indictment...I love you all!!!

I don't have anything to back this up, I will try to find a thread but I think that the coopertition bridge and balancing as a whole was taken quite well. The negative feedback came from the fact that it could change the rankings so much. Many teams, mine included, enjoyed balancing with the opposite alliance but the disappointment stemmed from the fact that if you lost a match and did not balance the coopertition bridge then your ranking would severely suffer.

Several teams throughout the season also were "sabotaged" by other teams trying to not cooperate to break up power alliances. This was particularly effective because your ranking could be so dependent upon the opposing alliances for the regional.

[Jengles]

Disclaimer - partially off topic post:



I've been holding back - but feel the need to say it is my impression (more than opinion, but less than documented fact) that the "coopertition bridge" is viewed much more positively throughout the FIRST community as a whole, than it is on CD. My team loved that aspect of the game, as did many of the teams we "hang with". Most the other teams we speak to were at most neutral on the idea.

Now the pure opinion part of it: CD is much more heavily populated with the "Heavy Hitters" (so to speak) and thus, would be more likely to have viewed coopertition as some kind of "watering down" of the rankings. Again...opinion, not indictment...I love you all!!!

So, this may be a complete misinterpretation, are you saying that the FIRST community and GDC do not care or consider the opinions of CD?

[ENIAC]

So, this may be a complete misinterpretation, are you saying that the FIRST community and GDC do not care or consider the opinions of CD?

I believe what they are saying is that CD is a subset of the FIRST community, which is the community that FIRST and the GDC serve first and foremost.

[bduddy]

So, this may be a complete misinterpretation, are you saying that the FIRST community and GDC do not care or consider the opinions of CD?I don't think he's saying that at all, I think he's saying (and I agree) that CD, because it is not a random sample of the FRC community, might have a different opinion. I'm not sure it's true in this case, but it definitely can be true in general.

[Qbot2640]

I don't think he's saying that at all, I think he's saying (and I agree) that CD, because it is not a random sample of the FRC community, might have a different opinion. I'm not sure it's true in this case, but it definitely can be true in general.

Yes...this is what I'm saying. CD is composed of a sort of "FIRST Honor Society", thus, it is not a random sample and may be more skewed (compared to the FIRST population) toward one side or the other on some issues.

Now, bringing the thread back to the topic - my point is that perhaps CD is not entirely correct that coopertition was such a bad thing, and perhaps it may appear again...I don't agree with some that this clue points to coopertition (at least not toward 2012 style) but I also don't agree that the GDC would rule it out.

And I still disagree with Hockey...assists - yes...hockey - too obvious. But then again I'd love to see a hockey based game, so if it is hockey I certainly won't be disappointed.

[atucker4072]

Yes...this is what I'm saying. CD is composed of a sort of "FIRST Honor Society", thus, it is not a random sample and may be more skewed (compared to the FIRST population) toward one side or the other on some issues.

Now, bringing the thread back to the topic - my point is that perhaps CD is not entirely correct that coopertition was such a bad thing, and perhaps it may appear again...I don't agree with some that this clue points to coopertition (at least not toward 2012 style) but I also don't agree that the GDC would rule it out.

And I still disagree with Hockey...assists - yes...hockey - too obvious. But then again I'd love to see a hockey based game, so if it is hockey I certainly won't be disappointed.

Keep in mind the blog post said I might be too easy to figure out.

[Jengles]

Qbot2640, I reread your post again and I don't know what I was thinking the first time through haha. I was confused why you would have said they didn't consider CD; seeing how this thread was because of Frank's post concerning the works of those on CD. I do agree now with your comment about the sampling of CD users though.

[Qbot2640]

Keep in mind the blog post said I might be too easy to figure out.

Well, if it is hockey the name should be:

"Powerplay!"

[roboryan]

"Powerplay!"
Why powerplay? just wondering I was thinking Slapshot ____ or Hat Trick____ or something more along those lines

Edit: sorry Qbot I didn't realize Powerplay was a Hockey term but it sounds like a good name just a note they might want to choose a term that relates to the game UNLESS ROBOTS WILL BE TEMPORARILY DISABLED WHEN THEY COMMIT A PENALTY:ahh:(possibly like 10 sec I couldn't see much longer than 10 if that) that would be interesting and actually possibly more fun in a way then again not in another

[Jacob Bendicksen]

I see where he's coming from with the 'heavy hitters' idea. It takes a certain amount of passion for FIRST to join (and let's be honest, most of us live on) a forum about high school competitive robotics. The people here are the most likely to be opinionated about certain topics (myself included), so it's not exactly a representative sample of the FIRST community as a whole.

[MooreteP]

I see where he's coming from with the 'heavy hitters' idea. It takes a certain amount of passion for FIRST to join (and let's be honest, most of us live on) a forum about high school competitive robotics. The people here are the most likely to be opinionated about certain topics (myself included), so it's not exactly a representative sample of the FIRST community as a whole.

I disagree.

Depending on the Forum or thread, there are representatives of all aspects of FIRST on CD.
There is no barrier or requirement to join or post. (click here to watch Anchorman 2 :ahh: )

These comments are anecdotal at best and the plural of anecdote is not data.

[Libby K]

I just have to respond to this without (I admit! mea culpa!) reading the subsequent posts. But has anyone considered that the GDC might have a <gasp> leak? That this "FakeGDC" might actually have some accurate information, and taking down the edit was just "damage control"?

I mean, there was that apparent/possible staircase.

And I have another idea that also fits into the "assists" angle, which I will not post until I have read ALL the posts. So, I'm going back to it...

It's been covered (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1318567&postcount=144) in (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1318582&postcount=154) great (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1318608&postcount=168) detail (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1318602&postcount=165) that @FakeGDC is just that - a fake. Run by a student.

[Anthony4004]

UNLESS ROBOTS WILL BE TEMPORARILY DISABLED WHEN THEY COMMIT A PENALTY:ahh:(possibly like 10 sec I couldn't see much longer than 10 if that) that would be interesting and actually possibly more fun in a way then again not in another

Even more technical things to worry about on the field? Oh jeez.....
Though i think would be cool, i feel that a lot of the field is malfunctioning at most times :P

[tickspe15]

Just because hockey is the only game in the hint that has not been played does not mean it will be the game. Hockey has been a popular guess on chief delphi since early last year. The GDC does read chief delphi so its likely that they just decided to add hockey into their game hint just to point towards assist.

[cadandcookies]

I disagree.

Depending on the Forum or thread, there are representatives of all aspects of FIRST on CD.
There is no barrier or requirement to join or post. (click here to watch Anchorman 2 :ahh: )

These comments are anecdotal at best and the plural of anecdote is not data.

And your post is just an anecdote and a single anecdote is even weaker than a plural of anecdotes.

You're right that there really aren't any (significant) entry barriers to Chief Delphi, but that doesn't mean that the population is an even representation of opinions of a very large community.

If we look at the first page on the "Most Posts" sort function under the Members tab, 23 out of 36 people affiliated with a team are affiliated with a team with a number less than 1000. Obviously, that's a relatively weak statistic (what with people changing teams and all that), but I would hardly thing that anyone would argue that teams that have been around longer tend to have a different perspective than new teams. Only six do not list FRC as their competition (keep in mind that the vast majority of FIRST teams are in FLL, and a larger amount are in FTC than FRC).

Only one is listed as having started competing in 2011 or later (ie, a student who started FRC and is still a student), which means everyone else is an alumni, mentor, or otherwise who has been in the program for more than four years.

These 49 people (we aren't counting the archiver bot) have contributed approximately 20% of Chief Delphi's posts.

Yes, there are representatives of all aspects of FIRST on Chief Delphi. Some of them are just louder and more common than others.

[Joseph Lewis]

UNLESS ROBOTS WILL BE TEMPORARILY DISABLED WHEN THEY COMMIT A PENALTY:ahh:(possibly like 10 sec I couldn't see much longer than 10 if that) that would be interesting and actually possibly more fun in a way then again not in another

This deserves a +1. :D While it would be a field management nightmare, it just sounds SO much more interesting than giving points to the other team for penalties.

P.S. I always hate it when penalty points swing matches, and I think disabling the offending robot for 5-10 seconds would solve the problem of repeated offenses, and encourage teams not to commit penalties on purpose. 5 - 10 seconds can make the difference in most matches; 3 points: usually not so much.

[Shockwave527]

Ok, get ready for some baseless game conjecture. I've wanted to post this somewhere but didn't know where, and as it has SOME bases in what people think the hint means, I decided to put it here. If there is a game conjecture thread, someone may direct me to it and I will move it there.

I've been looking at past games and trying to figure out, based off trends (but not off the game hint, since that wasn't really understood until today), what it might be. While there's a 99% chance I'm wrong, I would like to put down my thoughts.

There seem to be a lot of games involving balls as the main playing piece, and since last year's was a frisbee, although this is no guarantee, I'm thinking we'll have a ball game this year. Yet this year, while looking toward being ball based, also seems likely to be a slightly more obscure game (less obvious than the past years of basketball and frisbee), so I don't think we'll have a definite sport. The ball may be weird in some way, which got me thinking: beach balls. Another reason I came to this conclusion is that last year's game primarily had shooters as the way to move game pieces, and while it's certainly possible to have that again this year, I feel that won't be the primary means of moving a game piece. Instead, I theorize that the game may involve some kind of "kicker", where robots are thrown beach balls by a human player and must keep them in the air without holding on to them, and score them into some form of baskets for points. This could also lend to the idea of assists, where potentially a ball could be worth more if it has been handled by more than one robot. There could be red and blue balls for each alliance, and white balls which can be scored either in autonomous or maybe by either team for more points.

I am fairly sure beach balls has not been done before, nor has some form of volleyball (which is not that obscure a sport, I guess, but the beach balls change it up), so that's a possibility. Also, lighter playing pieces with some floatieness could add an interesting dynamic to the game. Beach balls also are not that expensive to buy or make, so that wouldn't be problematic. However I think they stated the game this year may be somewhat easier than last year's game, as newer teams last year were discouraged by the difficulty. I don't know if this gameplay would be easire or harder, but there would probably be some way robots could gain points by pushing balls into a goal as well, something that even the simplest robot could do.

With the glow-in-the-dark tape measure, someone had suggested caves of some sort. As a way to score extra points, there could be tunnels a robot could go under while they send the ball over to score extra points. The one problem I see with my theory (aside from the fact that everything is simply conjecture at this point) is that I'm pretty sure I've heard the game will be easier to score, whereas this would require careful watching and marking down to see if balls are passed, sent over caves, held, or dropped. Despite this, and especially after hearing assists, I think the idea is plausible, if not the most likely idea out there.

One last thought, and this is past theory and more just my stupid idea. First often likes names with puns, and I thought of a perfect one for this idea: "Keep It Up."

2 other points I wanted to make:

1: With assists also, maybe if all 3 members of the alliance hit the ball there would be a huge multiplier or point bonus. I'm betting while FIRST loves to make teams really work together, this game will focus a lot more on that with the idea of "assist". Teams must work together and help one another, rather than rely on one good bot, to truly succeed.

2: Most of my theories are probably just confirmation bias, as I thought of these last week and may simply be molding the "assist" clue to fit my idea.

[Chadfrom308]

New idea: each team has to wear drunk googles and each robot has a 1 full second delay for the controls

[iFlo_ow]

I've been looking at the clues. A hockey-themed game seems to fit.

'10 was soccer, '12 was basketball, so following the 2-yr pattern, Hockey fits. Maybe they'll bring back the low-friction surface from '09 Lunacy. Ice field?

Also - going out on a limb - it's also right around the time the Winter Olympics start. Maybe they wanted to keep in theme with a major sporting event of this year? Going on around the same time as regionals?

[Kevin Ray]

These comments are anecdotal at best and the plural of anecdote is not data.

Hey, I like that line, and I'm gonna steal it :)

[Oblarg]

I disagree.

Depending on the Forum or thread, there are representatives of all aspects of FIRST on CD.
There is no barrier or requirement to join or post. (click here to watch Anchorman 2 :ahh: )

These comments are anecdotal at best and the plural of anecdote is not data.

It's a pretty safe assumption (in fact, overwhelmingly so) that the people who post on Chief Delphi are not a representative sample of the FRC community as a whole.

I'm pretty sure you can think of a number of selection biases which don't involve an explicit barrier or requirement to post.

So, this may be a complete misinterpretation, are you saying that the FIRST community and GDC do not care or consider the opinions of CD?

Actually, given the relatively small size of the community here c.f. the entirety of FRC, and the fact (AFAIK) that CD is not officially endorsed by FIRST, I'd guess this probably isn't so far from the truth. I would be mightily surprised if the GDC gave much weight at all to "reactions on CD" (at least, in isolation) in their evaluation of what makes a good game.

[Mason987]

P.S. I always hate it when penalty points swing matches, and I think disabling the offending robot for 5-10 seconds would solve the problem of repeated offenses, and encourage teams not to commit penalties on purpose. 5 - 10 seconds can make the difference in most matches; 3 points: usually not so much.

I really like this idea, and I've seen similar mechanics used in several racing games. I don't really think its feasible though, at least not with the way the control system is set up right now. I could be wrong though. Not only that, but the definition of "repeat offender" varies from Ref to Ref, regardless of how defined it is in the rule book. I do like the idea, but I think that (as of right now) it would create more problems than it would solve. Maybe in the future they can make something like this work? We'll see! Prety good idea though. :P

[Alan Anderson]

P.S. I always hate it when penalty points swing matches,...

Breaking the rules should be penalized in a way that affects the outcome of a match. Is it just the direct assignment of points that you object to?

[bduddy]

This deserves a +1. :D While it would be a field management nightmare, it just sounds SO much more interesting than giving points to the other team for penalties.

P.S. I always hate it when penalty points swing matches, and I think disabling the offending robot for 5-10 seconds would solve the problem of repeated offenses, and encourage teams not to commit penalties on purpose. 5 - 10 seconds can make the difference in most matches; 3 points: usually not so much.I don't disagree with you, but in many FIRST games with protected zones, etc, disabling a robot temporarily would mean it continues to be in the way of the other alliance, and could possibly even give the rule-breaking team a further advantage.

[Joseph Lewis]

Breaking the rules should be penalized in a way that affects the outcome of a match. Is it just the direct assignment of points that you object to?

in short, yes.

[Joseph Lewis]

I don't disagree with you, but in many FIRST games with protected zones, etc, disabling a robot temporarily would mean it continues to be in the way of the other alliance, and could possibly even give the rule-breaking team a further advantage.

I didn't think of that, but now that you say it, it makes total sense. Hmm, I don't know how they would get around that one... Oh well, FIRST probably won't implement it anyway.

[AlDee]

"Well if you consider the sport->no sport pattern it doesn't make since to be a sport (assuming ultimate Frisbee is a sport).

What if it is regolith with trailers again but you score on your OWN team's trailer."

honestly, they can do whatever they want. they don't have to follow any patterns

I'm thinking we're due for a reincarnation of the regolith field.

[Derpancakes]

New idea: each team has to wear drunk googles and each robot has a 1 full second delay for the controls

:eek: You do realize the GDC looks on here?

[rakar]

I was thinking Hockey but the back of my brain was twitching...

SPEEDBALL???

From wiki... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedball_(sport) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedball_(sport))

Speedball is a quick, fast paced sport that is simple to teach and combines many aspects of other sports. Points are scored by throwing or kicking the ball into the opposing goal. It is played with two teams of five, each with one goalkeeper on a basketball court or football/soccer field.

Generally played on a basketball court (can be played on a soccer field).
The size of the goal should be about 6 ft wide by 2.5 ft tall. However, different size goals can be used; the larger the goals, the faster the game generally goes. Hockey goals are also commonly used.
A soccer ball or volleyball may be used.

Ten hours to go...

[TOTCoach]

Calvin Hartley is ready for the Water Game Announcement!
http://www.paradiseteams.org/funstuff/WaterGamePrep.jpg