The Not So-Secret Secret End-Game

[UnTrustedTruss]

Aerial Assist is one of the most technically boring challenges we have had so far, and with the smooth gradient of difficulty each year as the league matures. This simply does not make sense, it is clear there is something missing.
Our team first picked up on this during this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=YWb248RSafo#t=109) video in which Woody says

"We are doing this a bit differently this year, making changes from kickoff to championships this year"

Now this would be normal, if it wasn't for this year being one of the most cookie cutter to date. No major shifts in origination, challenge, or league size. It is weird that this would be mentioned if there was not something further to back this up.

Our suspicion peaked further when we looked at the massive Truss eliminate. Keep in mind this has to bear no burden (as is), it serves the same purpose as rope would. However, this is not some weak little rope, at the Drexel Hill kickoff we had several people hanging off of it. The truss did not sag with three, healthy, adult males hanging off of it. Again, in the video we see an adult male sitting on it. According to this (http://jthomaseng.com/pdffiles/GP%2012x12-00.pdf) spec-sheat, this thing can support 1726 lbs.

We really knew we were onto something when we looked at the rules about the goalie. The Goalie has little or no purpose in this challenge, with the 6 inch limit playing defense is nearly useless. Along with articulating movement at the other teams shot being counted as a foul (I believe, as we are redirecting their ball). Why would they go into so much detail for such a little feature, that defeats the purpose of the task (no tri-assists with a goalie)?

We believe it is because we have not heard about the full game yet. The only real challenge thus far is team coordination, the rest is just reused code, and driver twitch skills. Now, think back to last years end game. We sucked at it collectively, what was meant to be a race to the top resulted in single level hangs for most of us. It was a collective disappointment (learning experience), and certainly not fun to watch.

Now, think about it. This truss can bear the weight of all six robots, is low enough that it can be grappled if the height limit was dropped, yet not high enough to be above most people for risk of dropping and injury, and is out of place in the easiest challenge thus far.

Removing the height limit during the endgame means that teams can grabble the truss and attempt to raise onto it. With all the talk of changes, it only seems fair to see a mid-season addition.

I, personally, think that we have not seen the last of the hanging endgame.

[Lewis Nerone]

Team 4269 picked up on this as well. Wonder if it has anything to do with FIRST completely redesigning the 2013 game (Ultimate Ascent), and this was recycled from the original 2013 game. So to make up for lost time, FIRST threw out this generic game with the intention of adding something halfway through the build season.

Just a thought though...

[UnTrustedTruss]

Team 4269 picked up on this as well. Wonder if it has anything to do with FIRST completely redesigning the 2013 game (Ultimate Ascent), and this was recycled from the original 2013 game. So to make up for lost time, FIRST threw out this generic game with the intention of adding something halfway through the build season.

Just a thought though...

If you notice 2014 is much the same as 2013, it just feels like a better edition of it. High scoring top values, lower scoring low ones, a climbing challenge, vertical elements that (attempted) stopped long throws. 2014 feels like it improved on all the aspects 2013 was missing, an achievable endgame, a real motivation for teamwork, and the end of full field launchers.

[Chris_Ely]

Another point:
These lighting trusses can't possibly be very cheep; lots of welded aluminum cross bracing. Why would FIRST buy a bunch of these if they are only to be used for a 'volley ball net'.

[Justin Shelley]

This seems highly possible to me. It would make sense of the pointless 6" cylinder that can extend upwards

[bbradf44]

Seems like a strong possibility to me too. During the kickoff I remember Dean talking about trying things over or having to redo certain parts of the robot. I can't remember exactly when. Or maybe my memory is just blurd from the big morning

[Grim Tuesday]

Much of our team has a similar opinion -- that Aerial Assist seems rather bland and marks a departure from the design elements of the games in the last few years:


FIRST has been attempting to move to games that are easily accessible to an arbitrary audience -- like Rebound Rumble or Ultimate Ascent. This was in response to the inexplicable Logomotion where a person not in FIRST had a hard time understanding or getting excited about the game.
FIRST has been moving towards more and more live scoring and penalties and it seems like a direct step back go back to referee scoring
The last few games have seemed very well put together (Pyramid doubles as end game and lining up device, top of pyramid had climbing goals and shooting ones etc...) but this one has "missing pieces" -- There has to be another point to the truss and the goalie as the OP mentioned.
Rules last year were very well written with few inconsistencies, this year we have quite a few weird things (what happens if a robot dies while holding the only ball? Not to mention the absolute mess that is the definition of possession that the poor referees have to call)
Aerial assist does not do a good job of describing the game. What is the aerial part?
The gamepieces are not very common or easy to get; they are also quite expensive.

Back at an FRC Live! I went to, Bill said the GDC keeps a game in backup in case they run into a major problem with the game they were planning to play (ie supply problems). I feel like this is a backup game from circa 2010/2011. They definitely had something more in mind with the truss but cut it for some reason; I assume it was the part that was supposed to be aerial -- maybe a skyhook reverse ascent (descent) from the truss to the ground to start the match.

Changing the game sure would be a game changer, by definition.

[raptaconehs]

I would like to point out there is a rule stating that a robot cannot extend past 60 inches unless they are in the goalie zone. So I highly doubt that would be the case.

[UnTrustedTruss]

I would like to point out there is a rule stating that a robot cannot extend past 60 inches unless they are in the goalie zone. So I highly doubt that would be the case.

This is just to prevent a traveling goalie. If something so drastic as an added endgame was to happen, I am sure extending this rule to the endgame would be so stretch.



Back at an FRC Live! I went to, Bill said the GDC keeps a game in backup in case they run into a major problem with the game they were planning to play (ie supply problems). I feel like this is a backup game from circa 2010/2011. They definitely had something more in mind with the truss but cut it for some reason; I assume it was the part that was supposed to be aerial -- maybe a skyhook reverse ascent (descent) from the truss to the ground to start the match.

I doubt they will change the game midway, but that would sure be a game changer (pun intended).
Our team holds a similar opinion, this game feels like a remittent of an earlier first. In a couple of ways, it even feels like an improvement of last years game, as I listed above. I wonder if the light up bins are part of the game we could have seen this year, they are odd to include, and expensive. For simply providing us with permission to grab the ball, they seem really complicated.

[Racer26]

Wow. That DOES seem to make a LOT of sense.

The 6" cylinder seems completely useless to me as a defence mechanism -- simply playing physical defence on the shooting robot seems much more effective, given the large width of the goal.

The truss is additionally way overbuilt for its stated purpose, and 2014 would be the first year since 2000, and possibly earlier (I was a rookie in 2003, and have only a loose grasp on the 2000-2002 games), for an FRC game to be without an endgame. That seems really unlikely.

[cgmv123]

I would like to point out there is a rule stating that a robot cannot extend past 60 inches unless they are in the goalie zone. So I highly doubt that would be the case.

The point is that since adding a "secret" endgame would require changing the rules anyway, the GDC could change the 60 inch rule as well.

This screams crazy conspiracy theory to me. (Like many other Chief Delphi theories.)

[Steven Donow]

I'm currently on the road, but is there anything in the manual similar to the past two years that says FIRST can adjust points by X amount prior to Championship? This was in the manual for the last two years for endgames. I don't recall seeing it on my initial readthroughs.

[rsegrest]

RTM:
::rtm::
G10 The following actions are prohibited with regards to interaction with FIELD elements (excluding BALLS):
A. grabbing,
B. grasping
C. grappling
D. attaching to,
E. damaging,
F. becoming entangled
Violation: FOUL. If the Head Referee determines that further damage is likely to occur, DISABLED. Corrective action (such as eliminating sharp edges, removing the damaging mechanism, and/or re-Inspection) may be required before the ROBOT will be allowed to compete in subsequent MATCHES.

They could add something but hanging from the truss...based on G10 I don't think so...

[timytamy]

In my mind this may be what FIRST has come up with to throw a spanner in the works for the Ri3D and Build Blitz groups. I'm sure that someone at FIRST would have taken note of how similar many of the mid level robots were. Changing the game, while really sneaky, is probably one of the best ways to make things more interesting without doing anything to the build groups. You can still have the three day builds that teams can take as much as they want from, but when the "end game" is released, teams are on their own to come up with an effective mechanisim. Not to mention it will space out the team who engineer their robots more flexibly and can adapt and change mechansims easily.

I for one really hope that your prediction is real, just to see some of the crazy changes teams will make, and to see CD's reaction!

[Christopher149]

I'm currently on the road, but is there anything in the manual similar to the past two years that says FIRST can adjust points by X amount prior to Championship? This was in the manual for the last two years for endgames. I don't recall seeing it on my initial readthroughs.

Yes:


As competition at the FIRST Championship is typically different from that during the competition season, FIRST may alter each scoring value at the FIRST Championship by up to ten (10) points.

[cgmv123]

I'm currently on the road, but is there anything in the manual similar to the past two years that says FIRST can adjust points by X amount prior to Championship? This was in the manual for the last two years for endgames. I don't recall seeing it on my initial readthroughs.

They can adjust the rest of the scoring values instead. (Blue box below Table 3-2)

[Zuelu562]

I'm currently on the road, but is there anything in the manual similar to the past two years that says FIRST can adjust points by X amount prior to Championship? This was in the manual for the last two years for endgames. I don't recall seeing it on my initial readthroughs.

It's a blue box. They say they can change the scoring values by up to 10.

Also, in reference to Woody's comment, it may be worthwhile to go read through the Tournament Section this year. There are some changes to Championship Alliance Selection that I think is AWESOME. Fourth team part of the alliance. 3 Robot Lineup that is unchangeable unless there is a timeout. All 4 teams have a rep in the Driver Station

[UnTrustedTruss]

It's a blue box. They say they can change the scoring values by up to 10.


There are a lot of fluff points this year. The mobility points are a joke, along with the low goals being worth nearly nothing (without a combo-assist). There are a lot of balancing to do for this not to be a horrible challenge (all the same design, cookie cutter bots). Sadly, I think my tinfoil hat is the only one talking at this point.

[Negative 9]

The game does feel incomplete, but I'm not sure FIRST would go so far as to add a whole new endgame. Also, I don't know if anyone else has pointed this out yet, but the team version drawings definitely aren't as strong as the actual game element. It can't be hanging because the team drawings use wooden planks for the bottom of the truss not aluminum tubing. Unless of course they decide to change the rules AND the team version drawings.

On a different note, it wouldn't be overly difficult for a 60" robot to pop a wheelie so that part of the robot is above the lower 62" part of the truss.

[wasayanwer97]

Just gonna leave this here... :p

http://i.imgur.com/pAE8OdR.jpg

/Sarcasm

[AquaMorph]

I think this might have been an end game that was cut last minute. I feel if the game was changed significantly from kick off that would set a bad precedent. Teams who work hard to get a design quickly would be punished. It would also change people's strategies and make the initial brainstorming worthless.

[Racer26]

The game does feel incomplete, but I'm not sure FIRST would go so far as to add a whole new endgame. Also, I don't know if anyone else has pointed this out yet, but the team version drawings definitely aren't as strong as the actual game element. It can't be hanging because the team drawings use wooden planks for the bottom of the truss not aluminum tubing. Unless of course they decide to change the rules AND the team version drawings.

On a different note, it wouldn't be overly difficult for a 60" robot to pop a wheelie so that part of the robot is above the lower 62" part of the truss.


The team drawings have in the past left out perfectly viable strategies available with the real field, or been such poor facsimiles that successful teams needed to build something closer to the real field.

See:

2010 Breakaway, Team drawings used 2x4 wood for the vertical supports of the tower. If you wanted to hang from that vertical member (a la 1114 and many others), you had to build something closer to the real field.

2012 Rebound Rumble, Team drawings of the bridge resulted in a bridge that was considerably lighter, and behaved totally differently to the real bridges.

2013 Ultimate Ascent, Team drawings of the pyramid were not really realistic, especially in the corner areas. Corner climbers would have had to build a mockup closer to the real pyramid.

[AlecMataloni]

No.

[Brandon_L]

We really knew we were onto something when we looked at the rules about the goalie. The Goalie has little or no purpose in this challenge, with the 6 inch limit playing defense is nearly useless. Along with articulating movement at the other teams shot being counted as a foul (I believe, as we are redirecting their ball). Why would they go into so much detail for such a little feature, that defeats the purpose of the task (no tri-assists with a goalie)?


So, why can't the goalie be the first assist and then go back to goal tending?

[tStano]

Another point:
These lighting trusses can't possibly be very cheep; lots of welded aluminum cross bracing. Why would FIRST buy a bunch of these if they are only to be used for a 'volley ball net'.

Perhaps they were donated. I remember seeing them around arenas in other areas a lot in recent years.

[UnTrustedTruss]

So, why can't the goalie be the first assist and then go back to goal tending?

It has to take down its arm, with the defense only robots of late, could take several tens of seconds. Then it has to be able to pass, which I am guessing many teams that use the defense bot as a training tool for younger members (Normal Team: Elders, Defense only: Freshmen learning shop skills) is not going to be able to do well. Having a dedicated goalie is a major detriment, rather you buy into this theory or not.

[BigJ]

I suggest the posters saying that the game feels "incomplete" really sit down with their teams and imagine how the game will be played. There is a lot of underlying depth to this game that I feel some of the posters in this thread aren't really grasping.

I really doubt that an entire new challenge would be added to the game mid-season. Such a move would only tell teams not to trust the game rules in the future.

[DonRotolo]

So far I thought this thread was hilarious, until I realized these folks are serious...

I think what Big J just wrote should be re-read until it is understood.

[JesseK]

The ball is as big as the robot, +/- a few inches in one dimension or another. Adding a climbing element after week 1 (or even after 72 hours) would fundamentally change the design (and potentially the entire strategy) of any launching robot. This would essentially cut the build season short by 1 week and also potentially waste money on the teams who've actually put in much work in the first 72-168 hours of the build season. It would also reward teams who waited for 72 hours before putting in a lot of effort into breaking down the game & designing a robot.

I bet FIRST knows better than to pull shenanigans like that.

Until we see something official, this thread is really just some Nobody inciting speculation.

(edit - man, just a minute too late - durn you Sithbusters!)

[Grim Tuesday]

I suggest the posters saying that the game feels "incomplete" really sit down with their teams and imagine how the game will be played. There is a lot of underlying depth to this game that I feel some of the posters in this thread aren't really grasping.

I really doubt that an entire new challenge would be added to the game mid-season. Such a move would only tell teams not to trust the game rules in the future.

As one of those posters, I do agree with you that this game has much more depth than we give it credit for. I think I understand some of the uses of the far HP's and the low goal.

That said, it just feels like a very 2011 game, not one that follows in the footsteps of the last few years. Maybe they are shaking things up intentionally. If so, I can't wait to see how this game develops!

[safiq10]

While im not fully on board of the secret endgame. I dont think they would do this, but I will agree that the game is missing its special oomph. That both rebound rumble and ultimate ascent had. Maybe we over-speculated and are living in the past hype or maybe we are secretly correct and FIRST is holding back. The world may never know (unless they tell us)

[Brandon_L]

Then it has to be able to pass, which I am guessing many teams that use the defense bot as a training tool for younger members (Normal Team: Elders, Defense only: Freshmen learning shop skills) is not going to be able to do well.

If you can drive, you can heard the ball into the next zone where it can be picked up by a alliance partner

[MrForbes]

.....According to this spec-sheat, this thing can support 1726 lbs....

I really don't know what to think about this. I've seen that number somewhere before.....

[apples000]

At first, I dismissed this thread as some crazy theory that somebody came up with. The game this year seems a little boring. After two easy to explain, crowd pleasing exciting games, this one seems, well, a little dull. We thought the GDC learned their lesson with relying one alliance partners in 2012, and hard to explain games in 2011. Try explaining the assist system to an outsider, or how cycles work. If a robot e-stops, dies, breaks etc..., then no points for that alliance. To be the minimum competitive concept, you need to be able to pick up balls, drive, and put them in goals. The most competitive robot, will do the same three things.

My first explanation for the truss was that it originally held something, but for some reason, the GDC decided against this. Then, I watched the video. Even though I'm fairly certain that this is just me fantasizing about getting a different game (I don't like this one), Woodie's sentence struck me as being really weird during the kickoff, and there's no explanation. Usually, FIRST wants to spend as much time showing sponsors, scholarships, or inspiring speeches, and Woodie's sentence doesn't really mean anything besides for in this context.

Woodie says
"launch this year's madness. We're always trying to come up with new ways to keep things fresh and push the boundaries, so we're doing things a bit differently this year, making changes throughout the season from kickoff to championship"

He's not talking about one (possible) change for just championships, he's talking about changes for ALL parts of the season.

[tStano]

If you can drive, you can heard the ball into the next zone where it can be picked up by a alliance partner

I don't think it will be that easy. These balls are really light and slippery. I think even a slight tap(with a 150 pound robot), let alone "herding" (as defined in the rulebook) will send them off very unpredictably and fast.

[UnTrustedTruss]

He's not talking about one (possible) change for just championships, he's talking about changes for ALL parts of the season.

This kickoff was just plain weird. From the talk of failure, to the talk of changes, it just didn't feel normal. I am starting to not think that this will be an addition, however I am not thinking this was meant to be an addition. As others have mentioned the concept of backup games, this game feels like it comes from a first gone by. It will be interesting to see, if my crazy theory doesn't come true, how this will turn out.

We did do some testing with the balls on our 2013 robot. Those thinking they are going to control the ball by just hitting it with the bumpers are plain wrong. We have had the ball go under the wheel pinched and stuck, over the bumper, to the right and get pinched, to the left and pinched, off and up, and (surprisingly) forward. You are going to need a cow catcher to control this thing.

[DohertyBilly]

I suggest the posters saying that the game feels "incomplete" really sit down with their teams and imagine how the game will be played. There is a lot of underlying depth to this game that I feel some of the posters in this thread aren't really grasping.

I really doubt that an entire new challenge would be added to the game mid-season. Such a move would only tell teams not to trust the game rules in the future.

I think that this game is not so much about the technical challenge as it is about the strategy that will going into maximizing your efficiency. Personally, I see the 3 zones breaking down into 'jobs' that the robots are essentially assigned by virtue of position. I highly doubt that every robot will be able to do everything, so planning out the match in advance will be key. Of course, there are many different ways this could play out. FIRST only makes the rules, it's really us who decide how to play the game. I don't think Aerial Assist lacks challenge, it's just a different kind. Last year it was simpler as to what we had to do, the challenge was doing it. This year strikes me as the opposite.

[Kevin Sevcik]

I suggest the posters saying that the game feels "incomplete" really sit down with their teams and imagine how the game will be played. There is a lot of underlying depth to this game that I feel some of the posters in this thread aren't really grasping.

I really doubt that an entire new challenge would be added to the game mid-season. Such a move would only tell teams not to trust the game rules in the future.Quoted for truth. If you think this year's game is simple or boring, you clearly haven't thought it through very well. Playing this game well is going to take flexible strategies and rapid tactics changes.

I'm guessing the people who think it's simple figure they'll grab a ball, pass a ball, ???, ???, their allies score, and start the cycle over. As with basketball, movement away from the ball is going to be critical for success here.

Also, given the outrage and ruckus that's come from MINOR ruling changes late in the season, does anyone really think the GDC is going to drop an entirely new endgame challenge on teams in the middle of build? Please give them a little more credit than that.

Finally, I think you guys are misinterpreting that statement. Try understanding it like this: "launch this year's madness. We're always trying to come up with new ways to keep things fresh and push the boundaries, so we're doing things a bit differently this year, making changes to all parts of the season from kickoff to championship". That sense of the statement has the dual advantages of being true and also not insane.

[kellymc]

To add to the conspiracy, look at the bolts holding the "guides" onto the top of the truss in the video, there is 1-2" of thread exposed, very sloppy for a field element, seems like the guides were a last minute addition.

Having that much thread exposed is generally considered a safety hazard and the field elements are usually very refined

[UnTrustedTruss]

Finally, I think you guys are misinterpreting that statement. Try understanding it like this: "launch this year's madness. We're always trying to come up with new ways to keep things fresh and push the boundaries, so we're doing things a bit differently this year, making changes to all parts of the season from kickoff to championship". That sense of the statement has the dual advantages of being true and also not insane.
That makes a ton of sense, and I am doubting that my original theory has any validity. However, I don't get how they added anything this year at all. I have seen nothing particularly new, format wise, this year that would justify that statement

[Saberbot]

Another point:
These lighting trusses can't possibly be very cheep; lots of welded aluminum cross bracing. Why would FIRST buy a bunch of these if they are only to be used for a 'volley ball net'.

These trusses are a very standard part that are mass produced and widely available. I've seen at least four of them at every single FRC event I have ever attended. They can easily be rented from production houses for an extensive period of time. They aren't going to break if anybody runs in to them, and they won't flex at all. FIRST didn't have to do any engineering or manufacturing (which in itself would probably be just as expensive as the truss) and don't have to worry about replacing broken parts.

I don't see any argument as to how the presence of the trusses proves that there will be an endgame that involves hanging.

[Racer26]

That makes a ton of sense, and I am doubting that my original theory has any validity. However, I don't get how they added anything this year at all. I have seen nothing particularly new, format wise, this year that would justify that statement

The major one I've seen is changing CMP alliance selections to the IRI model.

[DampRobot]

No.

This. FIRST would never introduce a surprise endgame. It's just not going to happen.

[bduddy]

I suggest the posters saying that the game feels "incomplete" really sit down with their teams and imagine how the game will be played. There is a lot of underlying depth to this game that I feel some of the posters in this thread aren't really grasping.

I really doubt that an entire new challenge would be added to the game mid-season. Such a move would only tell teams not to trust the game rules in the future.The more I read topics like this, and some of the other general game discussion, the more I wonder whether people are even reading the rulebook before they post. I know this has always been a problem, but seriously... it seems like at least one in every 5 posts is someone seriously misunderstanding the rules.

[Mike Martus]

In my 18 years with a FIRST Team I always come away the first day with a thought...."What is the Smoke and Mirrors", "What is the real intent of the game" and most of all "First Game creators are really smart..... can the game be as it seems".

After a few days, weeks and even into the season the "Real" game emerges, teams re-design and re-adjust to the reality of how the game actually plays.

Yes, some games are better than others - this is the perception of each and every one of us and what we really expect to happen.

Look deep and hard at this game....was the Woodie comments "Smoke and Mirrors?

Great thread guys!

[alextound]

I love that this thread is here. . . and seems obvious, but there is no grappling rule, which is why I came to the site today. How are we supposed to pass the ball with nothing going beyond the outside of perimiter

[DavisC]

These trusses are a very standard part that are mass produced and widely available. I've seen at least four of them at every single FRC event I have ever attended. They can easily be rented from production houses for an extensive period of time. They aren't going to break if anybody runs in to them, and they won't flex at all. FIRST didn't have to do any engineering or manufacturing (which in itself would probably be just as expensive as the truss) and don't have to worry about replacing broken parts.

I don't see any argument as to how the presence of the trusses proves that there will be an endgame that involves hanging.

Aren't they used for the support of the black curtain behind the FMS people?

Maybe with the expansion of districts, event dates are more spread out and the small venues can't handle such a large display, so therefore they probably had extras on hand.

[MetalJacket]

I love that this thread is here. . . and seems obvious, but there is no grappling rule, which is why I came to the site today. How are we supposed to pass the ball with nothing going beyond the outside of perimiter

Two things - there is a grappling rule ...

G10
The following actions are prohibited with regards to interaction with FIELD elements (excluding BALLS):

grabbing,
grasping
grappling
attaching to,
damaging,
becoming entangled

and you can go outside of your frame perimeter (20" in any direction) ...

G24
A ROBOT’S horizontal dimensions may never exceed 20 in. beyond its FRAME PERIMETER


EDIT - If you were talking about going outside of the perimeter of the field, that is allowable too if you are passing to a human player

[Steven Donow]

Aren't they used for the support of the black curtain behind the FMS people?



Yes, similar trusses are used. Go to any music event and you'll see similar structures.

[AWB]

endgame: win

[Darth Drew]

At first, the idea of a big rule change/addition in the middle of the season was intriguing to me and this game does seem different from recent years so I thought it might happen, but Kevin makes a good point.
…I think you guys are misinterpreting that statement. Try understanding it like this: "launch this year's madness. We're always trying to come up with new ways to keep things fresh and push the boundaries, so we're doing things a bit differently this year, making changes to all parts of the season from kickoff to championship"…
The kickoff was definitely different, this game is different from previous years (there isn't much one elite robot can do without help from teammates), and the championship is going to be different too (with the four team alliances and the submitting of a three team lineup card).

[DavisC]

Where I think this "secret" endgame lies, is within the Autonomous period.

I believe Triple Play had an endgame where players drove to the end of the field (extra points for getting onto another robot).

I think they added this to the autonomous as to try and encourage more programmers to have some kind of moving autonomous instead of 6 robots sitting there.
Also note they usually don't have this double option to score in Auto...

[gabrielc1266]

In my opinion, I do believe that there is a secret end game. That has to do with the Truss, and Human players. Because going through the manual the only thing the human players do at this point is stand there, and if a ball goes out of bounds they get to put it back in, and human players have been a lot more involved in the past years. Especially during the end game. No changes to the robot, but a Not So-Secret Secret End-Game. (Just a thought)

[Robby Unruh]

Two things - there is a grappling rule ...

and you can go outside of your frame perimeter (20" in any direction) ...


EDIT - If you were talking about going outside of the perimeter of the field, that is allowable too if you are passing to a human player

I saw someone mention this in another thread and have been frantically searching the manual since and can't find anything on it. Where's this rule at?

[DavisC]

I saw someone mention this in another thread and have been frantically searching the manual since and can't find anything on it. Where's this rule at?

He quoted Rule G24.

[Robby Unruh]

He quoted Rule G24.

I meant specifically the rule about the human player. G11 mentions it in passing.

BALLS may not be intentionally or repeatedly ejected from gameplay.

Violation: FOUL per instance.


Passing a BALL to a HUMAN PLAYER is within gameplay and not considered a violation of G11.

but this is literally all I can find on the subject in the entire manual.

[MetalJacket]

Unfortunately right now the only mention of passing to human players is the fact that it is "within gameplay" I have no idea what exactly that means but would interpret it to mean that it is ok for me to drop a ball on the floor in front of my human player and have them pick it up (remember they can't touch a ball that is touching a robot)

[mrnoble]

As I see it, here are the arguments for and against. I hope I'm doing everyone's statements justice.

Arguments for a secret end game:

-Woodie's statement in the video that they would change things up
-The lack of changes in the game as presented (rather the opposite; recycled and repackaged strategies and game pieces)
-An over-built volleyball net
-An expensive light toy to hold the next ball
-Both the light and (especially) the truss featured prominently in the video as teasers, and in the manual
-A useless but highly described "defense" strategy that no team will choose to focus on, but might be an excuse for a hanging appendage
-The disruptive presence of Ri3D projects, potentially leading to vanilla robots
-No end game currently
-Shorter game play

Arguments against a secret end game:

-Perhaps hidden depths to game play strategy that, without deeper understanding and practice, are not yet discernible to most teams
-The possibility that the truss was donated, borrowed, rented, or already part of FIRST's stock and therefore an easy choice for a field element
-The possibility that FIRST made last-minute changes to the game, or put in place a backup game
-The furor that a major gameplay change would cause among many (most) teams, especially veterans and teams with a quick design/manufacturing process
-The fact that FRC is, after all, made up of humans. They can't always hit a home run; in fact, they might just have made a less-than-exciting game (at least on the surface; see above)


I am inclined toward there being a hidden game. I think it will be revealed soon after Ri3D is complete; certainly no later than next Saturday. I would not be surprised if "assist" were to extend toward helping other teams with a multi-robot hang, perhaps off of a yet-to-be-revealed attachment to the truss.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Unfortunately right now the only mention of passing to human players is the fact that it is "within gameplay" I have no idea what exactly that means but would interpret it to mean that it is ok for me to drop a ball on the floor in front of my human player and have them pick it up (remember they can't touch a ball that is touching a robot)
Rules:
G21
ROBOTS may not extend outside the FIELD.

Violation: FOUL. If continuous or repeated violations, TECHNICAL FOUL. If contact with anything outside the FIELD, RED CARD and the ROBOT will be DISABLED.
G40
TEAMS may not extend any body part into the FIELD during the MATCH.
Violation: TECHNICAL FOUL.

If not actively engaged with receiving or releasing a BALL, we strongly recommend that TEAMS stay fully behind the HUMAN PLAYER BARRIER during the MATCH.

G41
TEAMS may not contact any ROBOT or any BALL in contact with a ROBOT at any time during the MATCH.
Violation: TECHNICAL FOULI didn't find any exceptions anywhere. I'm pretty sure that combination means your only option is to launch the ball at your human player. Preferably lightly. There might be further rule changes to simplify this, but that's how I read the current rules.

[Kevin Sevcik]

To all those who believe there will be a secret endgame revealed in 3 days, 1 weeks, etc. I suggest that if you believe that's the case, don't do any serious designing, strategizing, or prototyping until the secret game is revealed, because it's just going to invalidate all that work you've just done.




What's that? Sitting on your hands for 3 days would be a serious disadvantage and would compromise your competitiveness? It'd be a large waste of your time? Huh.

[dubiousSwain]

As I see it, here are the arguments for and against. I hope I'm doing everyone's statements justice.

Arguments for a secret end game:

-Woodie's statement in the video that they would change things up
-The lack of changes in the game as presented (rather the opposite; recycled and repackaged strategies and game pieces)
-An over-built volleyball net
-An expensive light toy to hold the next ball
-Both the light and (especially) the truss featured prominently in the video as teasers, and in the manual
-A useless but highly described "defense" strategy that no team will choose to focus on, but might be an excuse for a hanging appendage
-The disruptive presence of Ri3D projects, potentially leading to vanilla robots
-No end game currently
-Shorter game play

Arguments against a secret end game:

-Perhaps hidden depths to game play strategy that, without deeper understanding and practice, are not yet discernible to most teams
-The possibility that the truss was donated, borrowed, rented, or already part of FIRST's stock and therefore an easy choice for a field element
-The possibility that FIRST made last-minute changes to the game, or put in place a backup game
-The furor that a major gameplay change would cause among many (most) teams, especially veterans and teams with a quick design/manufacturing process
-The fact that FRC is, after all, made up of humans. They can't always hit a home run; in fact, they might just have made a less-than-exciting game (at least on the surface; see above)


I am inclined toward there being a hidden game. I think it will be revealed soon after Ri3D is complete; certainly no later than next Saturday. I would not be surprised if "assist" were to extend toward helping other teams with a multi-robot hang, perhaps off of a yet-to-be-revealed attachment to the truss.

Very interesting thread, with great, thought out, points from both parties. i am personally thinking that they will add something new with the human players, as they aren't doing much during the game right now. or perhaps i'm not "appreciating the depth of the game"

[Gray Adams]

To all those who believe there will be a secret endgame revealed in 3 days, 1 weeks, etc. I suggest that if you believe that's the case, don't do any serious designing, strategizing, or prototyping until the secret game is revealed, because it's just going to invalidate all that work you've just done.




What's that? Sitting on your hands for 3 days would be a serious disadvantage and would compromise your competitiveness? It'd be a large waste of your time? Huh.

Or you could just hedge your bet and work anyway.

[mrnoble]

To all those who believe there will be a secret endgame revealed in 3 days, 1 weeks, etc. I suggest that if you believe that's the case, don't do any serious designing, strategizing, or prototyping until the secret game is revealed, because it's just going to invalidate all that work you've just done.




What's that? Sitting on your hands for 3 days would be a serious disadvantage and would compromise your competitiveness? It'd be a large waste of your time? Huh.

I'll keep that in mind, Kevin.

Sarcasm aside, I really don't want to be either a conspiracy nut, or an advocate for a pet theory. We're all just making our best guesses, on every aspect of the game, every year, from pre-season hints clear up to week 1 of competition. We do our best, and sometimes what we predict turns out to be correct; other times, with hindsight, we see that we missed the mark. I do think that there are plenty of reasons to think that something might be up. There are also plenty of reasons to think that it's all just our overactive imaginations.

As things develop, I will continue to plan and work with my team, and we will strategize with the information and expertise we have, and we will absorb new information as it presents itself.

“If the Day of Judgment erupts while you are planting a new tree, carry on and plant it.”, the Prophet said.

[Racer26]

I'm having a really hard time with the way that Aerial Assist seems like such a step backward from the leaps and bounds made toward simplicity of explaining the game to casual observers in a handful of seconds in 2012 and 2013.

2011: Convoluted scoring system with multipliers and logo bonuses that is hard to explain

2012: Its robot basketball, and they get points for balancing the bridge at the end of the game, more robots, more points.

2013: Throw frisbees into goals for points, hang from pyramid for more points at the end. Climb higher, get more points.

2014: Throw balls into goals, but you get more points along a non-linear scale for more robots touching it, plus theres this truss you can throw it over, and you get more points for catching it out of the air.

ADDITIONALLY

Aerial Assist is going to have difficulty being scored consistently. The only way to score Aerial Assist is to have refs being VERY careful to watch who touches what balls where, how they caught them out of the air, and what goals they've been fired through.

In the last several years, FIRST has being trying really hard to make games that can be scored automatically by means of sensors on the field, because realtime scoring on the videoboard near the field is important to helping casual observers follow the action.

I'm just seeing this as a big step backwards from the "New FIRST" we've seen in 2012 and 2013.

[Marc S.]

Arguments for a secret end game:
...
-The disruptive presence of Ri3D projects, potentially leading to vanilla robots
-No end game currently
...

This is probably the biggest thing that gives me hope for this theory. With all the awesome vex versa gear and the multiple Ri3D teams I am kinda... disappointed.

There isn't a whole lot of incentive anymore to design your own system when something (better) is readily available and good to go. Even if a team came up with a design themselves the Ri3D teams are holding a precedent that is hard to ignore and hard not to follow (or at least use as a starting point).

Either way I'm excited to see how Aerial Assist plays out.

[cgmv123]

2011: Convoluted scoring system with multipliers and logo bonuses that is hard to explain

I'd argue the system was not convoluted. (3 points, 2 points, or 1 point depending on height, double points of a tube for being over a yellow tube, double points for a complete row.)

The only way to score Aerial Assist is to have refs being VERY careful to watch who touches what balls where, how they caught them out of the air, and what goals they've been fired through.

There are 5 refs and only at most 2 balls to keep track of. It's not as hard as it sounds.

[Racer26]

I'd argue the system was not convoluted. (3 points, 2 points, or 1 point depending on height, double points of a tube for being over a yellow tube, double points for a complete row.)


Did you ever try to explain that scoring system (and why teams always went for the high pegs first), plus the minibot race, to a casual observer in 10 seconds or less?

There are 5 refs and only at most 2 balls to keep track of. It's not as hard as it sounds.

I'm not saying they can't do it, but having experienced every FIRST game since 2003 first hand (except 2005), games heavily dependent on the refs for scoring tend to have a lot of issues related to human error.

[Ultimatum]

I'd personally highly doubt any major changes to occur. There was an explosion on CD and throughout FIRST last year when they changed the "blizzard of frisbees" at the last thirty seconds. Now imagine if they changed something that didn't just slightly affect some teams in a negative way (ground pickup robots were rightfully frustrated), but something that changed what everyone had been planning all throughout build season.

[Steven Donow]

I don't think this game is too tough to describe to a "casual" observer.

Robots throw large exercise balls across the field into scoring zone, with additional points being awarded when a robot in another zone "assists" with scoring the ball. Bonus points are also awarded for either throwing it over the thing in the middle of the field and having it be catched.


Sure, it's not a short sentence like 2012 and 2013, but I think it's clear enough to get the general idea across.

[Oblarg]

...There is not enough space because you need a ramp, the shooting mechanism and a really small area for ALL the electronics (including the battery)...

...Face it: The only valid possibilities are to either kick the ball around into the goal or to defend other goals!

This is completely and utterly false. I suggest you go look at some match videos from 2008, where the balls were quite a bit bigger than these.

[Caio]

Don't know if this has been mentioned, but we just started watching the kickoff video again.

It starts with:
"They thought X, they got Y" themes with previous inventions.

Game hint:
"Sorry, we made a mistake. These numbers give the same result but look different and are formatted differently"

Maybe, a completely different challenge, solvable by the same robot.

Food for thought.

[BBray_T1296]

Can someone explain to me the word AERIAL in the game name please? Yeah you throw a ball, but game pieces have been 8' in the air for years now.

[Oblarg]

Can someone explain to me the word AERIAL in the game name please? Yeah you throw a ball, but game pieces have been 8' in the air for years now.

It starts with 'A' and they wanted to be alliterative, I guess.

[mrnoble]

To rookies: i do not wish to unmotivate you, but it will be a very hard game and you will need to spend good time making sure you actually get work done, especially with the possibility that they might change parts of the game to make the game actually practical.

Face it: The only valid possibilities are to either kick the ball around into the goal or to defend other goals!

I also disagree with this statement. There are a huge number of ways to make a robot that can extend up to 20" outside it's perimeter pick up, pass, catch, hold, and shoot a relatively small and light ball like the one we have. Video of past games (especially 2008, as was previously mentioned) will be extremely enlightening, and hopefully motivating.

[Racer26]

Can someone explain to me the word AERIAL in the game name please? Yeah you throw a ball, but game pieces have been 8' in the air for years now.

Or there's a climbing based end-game using the seemingly over-built truss that they plan to release after Ri3D's have done their thing but early enough in build to not screw people up too bad.

FIRST knew (at least as early as a few weeks ago) that there were going to be first 1, then 3, then 5, then 6 Ri3Ds this year. They saw the effect just one had in 2013. It significantly raised the floor of the competition, but it caused a fair bit of limiting to the diversity of designs. Having 6 Ri3Ds in 2014, we're going to have 6 good examples, made by teams of people with several world championships and countless regional wins under their collective belts. Those 6 robots will likely show us most of the major design themes 2014 robots will have. I can see how the GDC would see that as a negative thing, and try to do something about it.

Doing something like a surprise game element released AFTER the Ri3Ds are done would be a way to restore some of that unique design challenge without diminishing the beneficial effects that the Ri3Ds have.

[BBray_T1296]

It just seems incredibly strange that half the game name is a complete lie

[Oblarg]

It just seems incredibly strange that half the game name is a complete lie

Maybe the secret post-Ri3D twist is that your robot has to be a helicopter. :P

[Kevin Sevcik]

Or there's a climbing based end-game using the seemingly over-built truss that they plan to release after Ri3D's have done their thing but early enough in build to not screw people up too bad."Yeah, it'll completely change game strategies and add a whole new system to design, but it won't be THAT bad. It's not like anyone will be done with their strategy rundown and robot capabilities requirements by then, right? It'll be exciting for them to have to do that all over again after we change the game on them!"

Honestly, I think everyone in this thread should back away from the caffeine, get some sleep, and ask themselves tomorrow if they really think the above is something the GDC would actually say.

[Justin Shelley]

Don't know if this has been mentioned, but we just started watching the kickoff video again.

It starts with:
"They thought X, they got Y" themes with previous inventions.

Game hint:
"Sorry, we made a mistake. These numbers give the same result but look different and are formatted differently"

Maybe, a completely different challenge, solvable by the same robot.

Food for thought.

THIS!! I am more inclined to believe this then a change to the current game that would require new mechanisms.

[Rynocorn]

It just seems incredibly strange that half the game name is a complete lie

You could say a lot of the names are lies though... I mean rebound rumble didn't really have a lot of rebounding or surprise earthquakes. And breakaway means nothing ( to my knowledge ) so I think the same is just catchy.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Doing something like a surprise game element released AFTER the Ri3Ds are done would be a way to restore some of that unique design challenge without diminishing the beneficial effects that the Ri3Ds have.Last point then I'm out of this for good. Say the GDC releases a brand new endgame after all the Ri3Ds are done. What exactly do you think is going to happen then? You think ALL the Ri3D teams are going to throw up their hands and say "You think we're going to spend any MORE days showing people how to meet this new challenge?". Nope, you're just going to get bonus material as several of the Ri3D teams go back for seconds. It's not like they're contractually limited to only 3 days of posting youtube videos or something.

[Grim Tuesday]

You could say a lot of the names are lies though... I mean rebound rumble didn't really have a lot of rebounding or surprise earthquakes. And breakaway means nothing ( to my knowledge ) so I think the same is just catchy.

I always thought the rebound was a basketball doing a rebound (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebound_(basketball))(didn't happen but fit the theme), the rumble was the movement of the bridge. Breakaway (http://www.randolphyouthsoccer.org/rysdict.htm) fits soccer in the same way that rebound fit basketball- it's a term from the sport but not in the FRC game really.

There is no sport to pull aerial from and doesn't really seem to be a major part of the game.

[Racer26]

"Yeah, it'll completely change game strategies and add a whole new system to design, but it won't be THAT bad. It's not like anyone will be done with their strategy rundown and robot capabilities requirements by then, right? It'll be exciting for them to have to do that all over again after we change the game on them!"

Honestly, I think everyone in this thread should back away from the caffeine, get some sleep, and ask themselves tomorrow if they really think the above is something the GDC would actually say.

If you asked the GDC two years ago if they thought someone could design and build robots to play their games effectively in 72 hours, they'd have probably told you that you were crazy.

I think you're being seriously naive if you don't think the GDC would do something to combat the effect that Ri3D's have on the robots we see at competition.

EDIT: Just to be clear, I don't necessarily think this will happen. I think its a significant possibility. There have been enough clues, things that seem just a little out of place. Maybe the changing game hint was intentional. That truss is way stronger than it needs to be for its stated purpose. "Aerial" Assist having essentially no "Aerial" component. The first FIRST game in 14+ years to be devoid of an endgame. Aerial Assist as is, the minimum competitive robot, and the elite competitive robot are very similar in design.

[antibody]

At first I was thinking this was just a conspiracy theory cooked up by those veterans who were disappointed that the game was forcing them to collaborate with other teams.

However.... the more I read the other comments, the more I'm open to the possibility that FRC could change things up mid-build season. The one factor that gives me pause is the proliferation of the Ri3Ds this year. If FIRST is looking to force more innovative approaches, introducing an end-game mid-way would be a way to do that.

One other point that hasn't been mentioned yet is that changing requirements mid-stream is extremely common in the real-world. It is pretty much how most of the software projects I've worked on pan out. It is very good skill to learn how to adapt and improvise. Frustrating -- you bet. But it can also be extremely rewarding when the team pulls it together at the last minute.

ant

[Peragore]

Don't know if this has been mentioned, but we just started watching the kickoff video again.

It starts with:
"They thought X, they got Y" themes with previous inventions.

Game hint:
"Sorry, we made a mistake. These numbers give the same result but look different and are formatted differently"

Maybe, a completely different challenge, solvable by the same robot.

Food for thought.

Or they may not change the game up enough to actually require a large change of the robot. The game is so generic this year that you are almost required to build a robot that is a jack of all trades. That would allow GDC to change most game rules without severely punishing teams. That all ties back to the build for one thing, get another that ad talked about. We are building for one game, but are forced to build in such a generic way that it will work for the real game revealed later.

Just a thought

[Oblarg]

I think you're being seriously naive if you don't think the GDC would do something to combat the effect that Ri3D's have on the robots we see at competition.

Not if they, like a significant portion of the FRC community, view that effect as one of the best things to happen to FRC in recent memory.

[1086VEX]

The fact that you have to go back to 1998 before you hit a game that didn't feature an endgame makes me think this is easily a possibility. FIRST is all about replicating a realistic engineering environment and what better way to do that than with a last minute wrench in the system.

[Oblarg]

The fact that you have to go back to 1998 before you hit a game that didn't feature an endgame makes me think this is easily a possibility. FIRST is all about replicating a realistic engineering environment and what better way to do that than with a last minute wrench in the system.

The "endgame" in '08 was almost nonexistent (there was no special "finale period," and it netted you a completely negligible number of points).

[Racer26]

Not if they, like a significant portion of the FRC community, view that effect as one of the best things to happen to FRC in recent memory.

I'm not saying that the raising the floor of competition effect is a bad thing at all. Of course that part of the Ri3D effect is excellent, and should be encouraged.

Ultimate Ascent's game design contributed, and I think Ri3D exacerbated, a limited diversity in 2013 robot designs. I think this is a negative thing.

Changing the game after kickoff would be one way for them to attempt to bring some diversity back, as some teams will choose to not attempt to change their design, while some will.

[pilum40]

I also disagree with this statement. There are a huge number of ways to make a robot that can extend up to 20" outside it's perimeter pick up, pass, catch, hold, and shoot a relatively small and light ball like the one we have. Video of past games (especially 2008, as was previously mentioned) will be extremely enlightening, and hopefully motivating.
I'm just a dumb teacher-coach but working with my team today, It seems as if the "truss" is like a destractor I would use in a multiple-guess question. Please bear with me if I completely illustrate the obvious, it is late and I'm an old guy. After re-reading the manual and watching the game animation over and over, the truss is not the focus of play regardless of the conspiracy comments above. The game is not focused (currently) upon just shooting the ball. What the game is focused on are several different ideas (in my opinion):
1. FIRST needs to keep growing. Rookie teams are the lifeblood of FRC. The autonomous +5 points for just getting from the starting zone to the end zone gives rookie teams a success. Your team and my team will find a way to move, shoot and score in the "hot zone" during auto. We kicked around camera, lazy susan turret and are working on several ideas for a shooter. Again, this part of the game buoys up the rookie teams giving them points for moving. Judging from our own team's experience, just getting the robot to move and do SOMETHING in auto. was a major accomplishment given the relative STEM inexperience and lack of longer term STEM systems in our school. One man's opinion only.

2. The multiple passing point system is an extension of the cooperative game from 2012. It is also something that FIRST has been gradually working on since we've been "in the game". The biggest obstacles for us are deciding how we will pass the ball and if we will get multiple points for 2-3 passing and concentrate on the lower versus upper shooting targets. Adding an elevator system is another system that has the potential of breaking down during the game and complicates both construction, and driver training. Our jury's still out but as of this afternoon, we want to be consistent enough to score and consistent enough to add to the team aspects of this game. Flame me if you want. I've got big shoulders and certainly can learn from all responses.

As posted above, the truss IS a destractor only unless FIRST changes the rules and offers points for doing more with it. 10 points for popping the ball over the bar is not something we want to be trying to do during the shortened game time. It would be cool, and we'll probably build a prototype to gather and shoot. Again, it is consistency of scoring points and team work that we want to sharpen up. For us it's about doing the picking in the finals rather than getting picked.

Fancy engineering is great if you've got the facilities and financial backing. Keeping it simple and to the goals of the game is how smaller, less funded teams operate. I'm thinking FIRST may have had this in mind too. This game is not as complicated as our first game in 2010. That's a good thing. As a teacher, I want my students to work the problem rather than having the problem work them. Great thread though....I'm quite interested to see how y'all work the problem, if you deal with the truss, or just stay the course, keep it real and score lots of points in partnership with others on the course.

Again...I am NOT an engineer but a mere AP Human Geo, AP Government, AP Economics instructor. I truly want to get your thoughts on this. Your thoughts can only make all of our teams better. See some of y'all at the Dallas Regional?

Steve Miller
Team 3355-Purple Vipers

[Racer26]

The "endgame" in '08 was almost nonexistent (there was no special "finale period," and it netted you a completely negligible number of points).

Touche.

For those that weren't around:

In 2008, throwing a TRACKBALL over the OVERPASS (HURDLING) was worth 10 pts. The endgame bonus was 12 points for a TRACKBALL being ON the OVERPASS at the end of the MATCH.

In practice, teams just tried firing from a little further back than their usual shooting spot, and hoped it landed on top for the bonus 2 points, but weren't too bothered if instead they scored a HURDLE.

[1086VEX]

The "endgame" in '08 was almost nonexistent (there was no special "finale period," and it netted you a completely negligible number of points).

And yet there was still one(I said endgames in general not good endgames). the last game where it was "score, score, score till the clock ran out" game was '98.

[Oblarg]

And yet there was still one(I said endgames in general not good endgames). the last game where it was "score, score, score till the clock ran out" game was '98.

Pragmatically, though, the endgame has not universally been been an important part of FRC for any significant period of time. I don't think it's all that unbelievable that they decided to do a game without one.

[Jacob Bendicksen]

Perhaps the endgame is to have the human players get the balls balanced on top of the truss. This game seems to have several 'recycled' elements anyway (the balls from '08, the goals from '13, etc.), so maybe they'll strengthen the Overdrive throwback and have the endgame be to put the balls on top of the truss.

More generally though, I'm inclined to think they'll introduce something new. Ri3Ds are limiting the diversity of robots (especially with a game like this one where I imagine most robots will be able to do most things like capture balls, move with them, and get into a goal).

Climbing on the truss seems like too much of a '13 repeat, though.

[Racer26]

Pragmatically, though, the endgame has not universally been been an important part of FRC for any significant period of time. I don't think it's all that unbelievable that they decided to do a game without one.

I don't know. It was pretty important in:

2003
2004
(I don't remember 2005's endgame, as I didn't compete)
2006
2007
2010
2011
2012
2013

[1086VEX]

Pragmatically, though, the endgame has not universally been been an important part of FRC for any significant period of time. I don't think it's all that unbelievable that they decided to do a game without one.

I don't think it is either, but FIRST knows how to make a competitive exciting game and having an endgame has played a big roll in that since 06-07 minus 2008 as stated before

edit: 05 had a homezone endgame rule where you were awarded points if your robot made it back to that zone

[dellagd]

Well, maybe if... Ya know, I'm just not gonna think about this and focus on the actual game as of now rather than planning for something that may not happen :P

That being said im inclined to think something will change during the season


We have a robot to build.

[bs7280]

In the launch video he talked about how he liked that first was a lot like the real world and how he wanted it to be even more realistic. In the real word the project parameters can and will change at inconvenient times. So if first threw us a curveball and added a climbing element after week 1, it would be a lot like the real world.

[coollint]

Why 6 Cims? That seems a little excessive to me....

[BBray_T1296]

Why 6 Cims? That seems a little excessive to me....

And 4 MiniCIMs as well.

[Oblarg]

Why 6 Cims? That seems a little excessive to me....

And 4 mini-cims.

The motor budget this year is freaking opulent.

Any bets on seeing someone do a 6-cim, 2-minicim drive? Better start work on those 4-motor custom gearboxes. ;)

[tStano]

Thatd eat batteries like a champ.

[Racer26]

The motor allowance this year is bananas.

6 CIMs, 4 mini-CIMs (or BAGs), 4 Banebots (RS775), and the myriad of gearmotors. WAY more power than I can realistically see an Aerial Assist robot needing.

[Justin Montois]

http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Jerry-Seinfeld-No-Thanks-and-Leave.gif

[Caio]

Fuel to the flames of conspiracy:

Code to unlock the rules was:
3 zones, 2 goals, 1 alliance

Might be looking to deep into things, but they suuure emphasized "collaboration" a lot.

[aldaeron]

Based on this from 3.1.4

As competition at the FIRST Championship is typically different from that during the competition season, FIRST may alter each scoring value at the FIRST Championship by up to ten (10) points.

I believe that IF (and it is a big if) there was a change it would be between the regular season and championships. I agree with the many previous posts that disrupting the regular season is unlikely, but since the folks headed to championships should be "the best teams" they could handle changes to scoring mentioned in 3.1.4 and possibly an endgame. All they would need to do is amend R18 " At an Event, Teams may have access to a static set of FABRICATED ITEMS that shall not exceed 30 lbs to be used to repair and/or upgrade their ROBOT. ..." to add an additional 30 lbs for a <new cool endgame>


I also agree that there is a shift in the emphasis of this game which I like. Less experienced teams can contribute considerable points by assisting and super-duper-awesome teams can't score 100 points by themselves.

There is also a change in the balance between robot design and actually playing the game. Referencing 2013 - you can't make a full court shooter that can also climb to the 3rd level of the pyramid and just win by yourself. You have to drive well and interact with teams you don't know in advance (maybe they're great at passing, maybe not). I feel this more closely mirrors real engineering tasks - you know some things in advance and can design to accommodate them (i.e. making a high goal scorer) and some things you have to be flexible with (i.e. counting on scoring a 3 ASSIST CYCLE every time depends heavily on your randomly assigned alliance partners). As a real world example - say you are drilling a long tunnel - you can only scan or core a small percentage of the mountain you want to tunnel through (i bet its expensive). You design a path and feed/speed rates for what you can see, but monitor and adjust based on how the tunneler is running, what rocks actually are coming out, etc.

(Note: I am not a tunnel engineer and am making an educated guess here about how it works)

Cool thread - The conspiracy theorists of CD continue to make me chuckle.

-matto-

[Jacob Bendicksen]

Something I just found:
R7
ROBOTS must allow removal of BALLS from the ROBOT and the ROBOT from FIELD elements while DISABLED and powered off.
[blue box below that]
ROBOTS will not be re-enabled after the MATCH, so Teams must be sure that BALLS and ROBOTS can be quickly, simply, and safely removed.

It seems hard to accidentally entangle yourself in a field element, so they most likely wouldn't have included this if they weren't planning on some sort of endgame.

[runneals]

If it's worth anything, my mentor (who's on JVN) instilled in me the only year I was a member in FRC (last year) was to build in modules/subsystems. I find this truly valuable if teams think there will be a "secret end game". If you build the thrower as a module(s)/subsystem(s), you can easily build another module(s)/subsystem(s) to accommodate the end game.

Robot design shouldn't be 100% around each of the mechanisms you build, but instead as a complete system.

Just some thoughts,
D

[Kevin Sevcik]

I'm hearing lots of complaints that Ri3Ds reduced the "diversity" of robots last year, which I find unfathomable. At our regional we had the full gamut of tall shooters, small shooters, 10-30 point hangs, ground pickups, 30-point exclusive hangs, 30-pt hang and dumps, and defense only chassis bots. Only there were a lot less of the latter and more attempts at shooters that could probably work with a little more polish.

This is compared to 2012 where a rather lot our teams didn't even attempt shooters or ground pickups or anything. And many didn't even manage bridge flippers.

So if Ri3D means reducing "diversity" by reducing the number of teams that fail at everything but driving and increasing the number of teams that at least attempt an advanced subsystem like a shooter or manipulator... Well don't you think that might do a slightly better job of Inspiring students about Science and Technology? And you think the GDC is against this somehow?

[Racer26]

I also agree that there is a shift in the emphasis of this game which I like. Less experienced teams can contribute considerable points by assisting and super-duper-awesome teams can't score 100 points by themselves.


Strongly disagree.

Top teams will easily be able to score 25 points in auto (roughly comparable to the 25-30 of 2013).

Then they can take the ball, truss toss it, reacquire it themselves, and top goal it for a 20 point cycle, (in 2013, a successful 4 DISC volley was worth just 12 points). Balls will be easier to acquire than going to a loader station or floor loading DISCs was, and the field is wide open, so travel should be comparatively less impeded. Top teams pushed 5-7 cycles + a 10 pt hang in 2013.

Top teams in 2013 had OPRs around about 100pts. 5x12pt cycle=60+10 hang+30 auto=100.

Top teams in 2014 will be capable of 25auto + 6ish cycles of 20 = 150ish pts by themselves, with their two alliance partners just playing defence for them.

[Racer26]

<R7> ROBOTS must allow removal of BALLS from the ROBOT and the ROBOT from FIELD elements while DISABLED and powered off.

Emphasis mine. Agree this seems odd, since we're expressly forbidden from:

<G10> The following actions are prohibited with regards to interaction with FIELD elements (excluding BALLS):

grabbing,
grasping
grappling
attaching to,
damaging,
becoming entangled

Violation: FOUL. If the Head Referee determines that further damage is likely to occur, DISABLED. Corrective action (such as eliminating sharp edges, removing the damaging mechanism, and/or re-Inspection) may be required before the ROBOT will be allowed to compete in subsequent MATCHES.

[Oblarg]

Another climbing endgame would be rather lame, though...

[AndrewPospeshil]

Judging by the broadcast this year, I can say with some certainty that there will be an added endgame this year. When will it be introduced? That remains to be seen. But the truth of the matter is that this is one of the "worst games" FIRST has come up with in years. Many people keep comparing it to Overdrive, and rightfully so. They're both devoid of endgame (OD only had a bonus at the end for leaving the ball on top), although OD's robots were at least fast and exciting, mimicking a race track. What does AA have... oh yeah, passing some balls with little to no action outside of the obvious bashing-and-crashing. Plus AA uses recycled game elements from '08 and goals from '13. I might believe there's no secret endgame were there a reason for there not to be. But let's face it. Every year FIRST gets better at what it does, and there's no reason for them to produce something this shallow. Sure it's a fun and interesting game but it really pales in comparison to Ultimate Ascent.

There were some balance issues mentioned relating to Ri3D and pro teams far outscoring rookie teams, which explains the heavy focus on alliance cooperation this year. But there's nothing new. Nothing to make you say "wow, I sure remembered that year!" unless you're talking about how disappointing it was.

We all saw the broadcast. So many hints. "He thought.... He GOT..." and Woodie's comments about
how they're always making things new and exciting
how they're trying to make things like the real world (engineers always have shortened deadlines, wrenches thrown into their plans, etc etc)
how they would literally be changing things between competitions

There's a chance they could add some other element to the game, but at this point it's just not up to the high standards FIRST has set (and met) for itself. More things to consider:

Trusses are way more expensive than necessary; a simple flat barrier would do the job just fine
What do the human players do again? Pick balls off the podium, pop 'em back into the field?
Speaking of pedestals, why are they so unnecessarily fancy? A simple yes/no doesn't need lights, just waiting for the ball to hit the floor behind the drivers would also suffice


I understand if and why you believe there's "more depth to this game than you care to fathom" or some educated-sounding stuff like that, but the evidence is right there. This game is missing something, and has a lot of extra fluff. Something's coming.

(pardon me if I sound incredibly rude, it's 1:30 and I'm exhausted lol. good luck to all of the teams out there, we're gonna need it!)

[aldaeron]

Top teams in 2014 will be capable of 25auto + 6ish cycles of 20 = 150ish pts by themselves, with their two alliance partners just playing defence for them.

With three robots playing zone defense and passing when the ball is in another zone - do you really think six 20 points cycles is reasonable? I foresee a lot of pinning to prevent that (what else are the other bots doing?). Or at least interfering with the super bot when it tosses over the truss. Keep in mind that three passes and a high score is 40 points per cycle so you would only need 3 to outscore the scenario you described. Now the 2 defenders may have to help the 20 point cycling super bot allowing more 40 point passing based cycles.

I do think that the super bots will be able to score quite a bit and probably still win matches by themselves - I just think it will be less of a runaway.

[M.O'Reilly]

To fuel the fire,

I'd be more interested in a placement challenge for the end game, using the pedestals (which light up green like towers in 2011 and bridges in 2012 and are short enough that a sub 5' bot can reach them). The pedestals can be placed in each alliances scoring zone and double as a "safe spot" to shoot the ball from during the match (like the key or pyramid in years past).

I can also see no changes being made at all.

But I think there's a difference between changing existing challenges and adding new ones. Additions are fair, so long as a ball launcher still works for the game.

[Racer26]

With three robots playing zone defense and passing when the ball is in another zone - do you really think six 20 points cycles is reasonable? I foresee a lot of pinning to prevent that (what else are the other bots doing?). Or at least interfering with the super bot when it tosses over the truss. Keep in mind that three passes and a high score is 40 points per cycle so you would only need 3 to outscore the scenario you described. Now the 2 defenders may have to help the 20 point cycling super bot allowing more 40 point passing based cycles.

I do think that the super bots will be able to score quite a bit and probably still win matches by themselves - I just think it will be less of a runaway.

I believe the logistical complexity of passing the ball between three robots and three zones (which means it will take considerably longer to do than a team 'going solo' as I described earlier), with the relatively weak position of MOST teams at the regional level means that it will be Championship Elimination rounds (or MSC) before we see some really stellar 3 assist runs from both alliances in a match.

I'm not saying it won't happen. Certainly, you'll see teams (especially those that share a practice facility) that are well practiced at assist manoevres in regional eliminations. 1114 + 2056 come quickly to mind as a pair that will likely be very good at it. But in qualifications, when they'll be paired up with comparatively weaker and slower partners? I'm betting you'll see more solo scorer 2 defender alliances than not.

[EricH]

I don't know. It was pretty important in:

(I don't remember 2005's endgame, as I didn't compete)


2005 was to get the entire alliance back to the home zone. Only problem was that it was the ENTIRE alliance for 10 points... which could be gotten more easily by making a row somewhere else on the field for 13 points. I don't remember a single case where the end game was awarded.

Something I just found:

[blue box below that]


It seems hard to accidentally entangle yourself in a field element, so they most likely wouldn't have included this if they weren't planning on some sort of endgame.

Easier than you might think. Maybe a goalie gets excited under the truss while on a harassment run to the other side, extends their pole and... Or runs into the small goal... Or... You get the picture. I've seen a lot of these games, and in most of them it's not hard to get snarled.

[zacube]

My regional actually had mostly shooters, with a total of about 4 or 5 full climbers. Of the rest (which were mostly shooters with one or two defense bots) the majority used the same sort of shooter as Ri3D, leading to a large number of very similar robots. We still had a few of the tall shooters, and shooters with other designs, but they were few and far between. While I do not think that Ri3D is entirely a bad thing, as it can be useful for inspiration and some ideas, I do think that a few teams relied on Ri3D for ideas too much. Because of that, I can see FIRST deciding to retaliate with a random major change to the game after Ri3D finished. That said, I am still not completely sold on the idea that they will have some sort of trick up their sleeve to counteract Ri3D.

I'm hearing lots of complaints that Ri3Ds reduced the "diversity" of robots last year, which I find unfathomable. At our regional we had the full gamut of tall shooters, small shooters, 10-30 point hangs, ground pickups, 30-point exclusive hangs, 30-pt hang and dumps, and defense only chassis bots. Only there were a lot less of the latter and more attempts at shooters that could probably work with a little more polish.

This is compared to 2012 where a rather lot our teams didn't even attempt shooters or ground pickups or anything. And many didn't even manage bridge flippers.

So if Ri3D means reducing "diversity" by reducing the number of teams that fail at everything but driving and increasing the number of teams that at least attempt an advanced subsystem like a shooter or manipulator... Well don't you think that might do a slightly better job of Inspiring students about Science and Technology? And you think the GDC is against this somehow?

[AndrewPospeshil]

My regional actually had mostly shooters, with a total of about 4 or 5 full climbers. Of the rest (which were mostly shooters with one or two defense bots) the majority used the same sort of shooter as Ri3D, leading to a large number of very similar robots. We still had a few of the tall shooters, and shooters with other designs, but they were few and far between. While I do not think that Ri3D is entirely a bad thing, as it can be useful for inspiration and some ideas, I do think that a few teams relied on Ri3D for ideas too much. Because of that, I can see FIRST deciding to retaliate with a random major change to the game after Ri3D finished. That said, I am still not completely sold on the idea that they will have some sort of trick up their sleeve to counteract Ri3D.

Truth be told, I don't know if there is a true and sure counter to Ri3D. People are going to use that regardless, ranging from using it as a blueprint to inspiration. I think this is unavoidable. However, I do think switching it up could prevent teams from all looking the same. Assuming they add an endgame, and assuming it requires only additions as opposed to changes, then we can see some more variety. But I definitely believe there will be repeats, clones, etc, and that's pretty much unavoidable.

[runneals]

I was just looking at the field diagrams (yes, at 12:45 am) to see if they had any thing that stood out in it's design and I found something that made NO SENSE whatsoever at all...

In doing the math, for a human player to retrieve a ball and put it in play, they would need to walk 50 feet to the 'trash can', then another 50 feet back to the field. I can't imagine this being done in a safe manner (watch out for those refs, photographers/media, cables, etc.)...

Likewise, this means that the field reset crew has to have several balls, as the distance between the goals and the balls is all across the field (I couldn't imagine them running back & forth in front of the crowd to deliver the balls to the other side.

Thoughts?

[dubiousSwain]

2 AM here and i am loving the conspiracy theories. keep 'em coming, FIRSTers!

[AndrewPospeshil]

I was just looking at the field diagrams (yes, at 12:45 am) to see if they had any thing that stood out in it's design and I found something that made NO SENSE whatsoever at all...

In doing the math, for a human player to retrieve a ball and put it in play, they would need to walk 50 feet to the 'trash can', then another 50 feet back to the field. I can't imagine this being done in a safe manner (watch out for those refs, photographers/media, cables, etc.)...

Likewise, this means that the field reset crew has to have several balls, as the distance between the goals and the balls is all across the field (I couldn't imagine them running back & forth in front of the crowd to deliver the balls to the other side.

Thoughts?

That's another thing that one of my teammates noticed but I didn't put much thought into. I assumed it was just an error or a misprint, but what if it's not? I mean, that's a pretty big error to make, placing the wrong color ball in both slots. At this point I feel like I'm grasping at thin air, but this is just another reason for me to be super suspicious.

I need sleep.

[Incognito]

That's another thing that one of my teammates noticed but I didn't put much thought into. I assumed it was just an error or a misprint, but what if it's not? I mean, that's a pretty big error to make, placing the wrong color ball in both slots. At this point I feel like I'm grasping at thin air, but this is just another reason for me to be super suspicious.

I need sleep.
I almost just agreed, but I realized three things that will make sense of this: 1) alliances are scoring at the opposite end of the field that the drivers are driving from; 2) If the ball that was just scored goes to the pedestal behind the alliance wall that it was just scored through, putting the ball back in play here would be putting the ball back in play in the same zone to be able to score instantly again; and 3) There WILL be more than one ball outside of the field, so nobody will need to run back and forth. There would always be a ball ready to be picked up from the pedestal (I believe), and field staff would take the scored ball and return it to the opposite side in an orderly fashion. Taking these things into account, it makes sense that the balls are at the ends that they are: they are correct.

While I'm posting, I have a question to be raised that I haven't seen answered in the manual or anywhere else: When does the pedestal light up? Any references to that are obscure and nothing specific about when it actually lights up is said.

[Zaque]

I was just looking at the field diagrams (yes, at 12:45 am) to see if they had any thing that stood out in it's design and I found something that made NO SENSE whatsoever at all...

In doing the math, for a human player to retrieve a ball and put it in play, they would need to walk 50 feet to the 'trash can', then another 50 feet back to the field. I can't imagine this being done in a safe manner (watch out for those refs, photographers/media, cables, etc.)...

Likewise, this means that the field reset crew has to have several balls, as the distance between the goals and the balls is all across the field (I couldn't imagine them running back & forth in front of the crowd to deliver the balls to the other side.

Thoughts?

I think staying up late has gotten to your head. ;) The human player in the alliance station puts the ball into play at his end of the field. The other stations are for the two other human players.

[Wildcats1378]

I think this has some merit to it. I don't really understand why they would put a a huge truss in the middle if all you are doing is lobbing things over it. Why not just a bar? Or a net? why a huge big piece?

I'm hoping it's right, anyway, since this game seems pretty boring to me. basically no obstacles, 2 balls in play at a time, no end game, and a huge reliance on your team mates being able to do something. I feel like it isn't NEARLY as interesting nor exciting to build for as Ultimate Ascent or Rebound Rumble... Maybe they thought that the pyramid endgame was too difficult for rookie teams (which it was!) so they decided to dumb it down a bit to give everyone more of an equal chance?

[Incognito]

I think staying up late has gotten to your head. ;) The human player in the alliance station puts the ball into play at his end of the field. The other stations are for the two other human players.

EDIT: I misunderstood what you were saying. I think you misunderstood what I was explaining, though. The original issue is about the pedestal colors being opposite of what would be intuitive, but it just seems that way because the alliance station colors are not clearly marked. The balls are actually in the correct place.

Scoring opposite of where the drivers are located:

2.2.3 The GOALS
Each ALLIANCE has two (2) HIGH GOALS located above their opponent’s ALLIANCE WALL.

[bduddy]

look again:You don't put into play the same balls that are scored - the field crew provides the balls, presumably from a stock.

Man, field reset is going to be fun this year... so will refereeing...

As for the Truss, why? Simple: They're cheap, they got/have a bunch from somewhere (haven't they been used in previous fields?), and it needs to be able to not collapse (dangerous!) if it gets hit by a ball launched at it.

[Incognito]

I understand that. What i was trying to say was that the ball that was scored needs to go to the opposite end of the field again before being put on the pedestal. A ball will already be on the pedestal when the ball in play was scored, so as for the human player running to the opposite side of the field to get the ball and back again (as runneals thought), that won't happen. The balls on the pedestals are on the correct side of the field to be put back into play.

[AndrewPospeshil]

As for the Truss, why? Simple: They're cheap

Really? Can you find a price for 25' of 12" truss? I'm not trying to be snarky or whatever, I just can't find a website that gives a definite price for a definite length.

[runneals]

I think staying up late has gotten to your head. ;)

That's not the problem... It's just not having adequate sleep the past few days lol (dreaming of kickoff)! Thank goodness my team doesn't start build season until next Monday :) (lots of time to get sleep and collect our thoughts)

Anyway, I was looking further into the drawings, and noticed something... Why does the Team Truss (TE-14022) need to have the truss span supports if all it's doing is sitting there? Couldn't it be something they enclosed like their team truss supports? Also I'm wondering why they chose to have the sides enclosed and the top open (as far as the team truss supports go). Turning the design would support more weight if teams were hanging.

Also, I just noticed the text "If the string is GREEN, then the Head Referee has determined that the FIELD is safe for humans." Has this been in the book before? I wouldn't think that balls would be dangerous.

Better get to bed before I can get any more crazier :yikes: :ahh:

[dcarr]

Really? Can you find a price for 25' of 12" truss? I'm not trying to be snarky or whatever, I just can't find a website that gives a definite price for a definite length.

Got a quote for the exact sections of truss used: $3200 from a large sound/lighting/stage dealer in SoCal. Global Truss brand (was the cheapest of the ones they offered). This is probably typical. This stuff is pro grade, built to last for years and hold tons of heavy, expensive sound and lighting gear, and isn't cheap.

[AndrewPospeshil]

Got a quote for the exact sections of truss used: $3200 from a large sound/lighting/stage dealer in SoCal. Global Truss brand (was the cheapest of the ones they offered). This is probably typical. This stuff is pro grade, built to last for years and hold tons of heavy, expensive sound and lighting gear, and isn't cheap.

Ah, interesting. Now why would first use a field element that costs >$3k to act as nothing more than a barrier for robots to go under and balls to go over? :yikes:

Goodnight everyone, hope to see some crazy conspiracies when I wake up! :D

[dcarr]

Ah, interesting. Now why would first use a field element that costs >$3k to act as nothing more than a barrier for robots to go under and balls to go over? :yikes:

Goodnight everyone, hope to see some crazy conspiracies when I wake up! :D

It's curious. Occam's razor says it's probably for durability, appearance, and possible re-use in future fields.

Thought of buying the real stuff to do double duty as pit trussing but at that price, it's not worth it. Smaller trussing is more space and cost efficient.

[runneals]

I understand that. What i was trying to say was that the ball that was scored needs to go to the opposite end of the field again before being put on the pedestal. A ball will already be on the pedestal when the ball in play was scored, so as for the human player running to the opposite side of the field to get the ball and back again (as runneals thought), that won't happen. The balls on the pedestals are on the correct side of the field to be put back into play.

I may be half brain dead, but it looks like the human player area is down near the respective alliance's goal (so they still would have to walk that 100ft to/from if they wanted to use their human player area. *See figure 2-15

[Mr V]

I may be half brain dead, but it looks like the human player area is down near the respective alliance's goal (so they still would have to walk that 100ft to/from if they wanted to use their human player area. *See figure 2-15

There are 3 HP zones. 1 for the inbounder that is behind the driver's station and wraps around the side of the field and extends a short distance down the side of the field. There are also 2 HP zones on the side of the field at near your team's goals. No one can leave their zone once the match starts. So the in-bounder only has to walk about 15 feet from the pedestal to the location that they can in-bound the ball. Once they have in-bounded the ball they can return to the pedestal. Of course they could stay at the side of the field until the ball has left the first zone however there is a possibility that the ball could go out of bounds on the other side of the field so it is likely in their best interest to return to near the pedestal so they have an equal distance to either side of the field.

So the total distance the HP needs to walk is from the in-bound area to the pedestal and back, about 30' and only half of that needs to be done after the pedestal lights up.

With 3 balls per alliance, one in play on the field and two out of play there should rarely be a case where there should not be a problem of not having a ball on the pedestal when needed.

I do see a need for say 4 ball handlers and they could potentially walk a couple of miles over the length of the competition.

[tag_groff]

And 4 mini-cims.

The motor budget this year is freaking opulent.

Any bets on seeing someone do a 6-cim, 2-minicim drive? Better start work on those 4-motor custom gearboxes. ;)

we have a 4CIM 4Mini-CIM Drive. ;)

[GearsOfFury]

It's curious. Occam's razor says it's probably for durability, appearance, and possible re-use in future fields.

Thought of buying the real stuff to do double duty as pit trussing but at that price, it's not worth it. Smaller trussing is more space and cost efficient.

My opinion on truss strength / durability and people feeling it's unnecessary: I think people are overlooking the fact that there will be 3 pound balls shot at the truss at high velocity, multiple times per game. The GDC is probably just trying to insure the thing doesn't break or fall over when all those shots fail to clear the truss. A rope or simple bar wouldn't do it. Plus as some have pointed out it looks like standard lighting rigging that they have plenty of experience with and access to.

[Johnnybukkel]

My opinion on truss strength / durability and people feeling it's unnecessary: I think people are overlooking the fact that there will be 3 pound balls shot at the truss at high velocity, multiple times per game. The GDC is probably just trying to insure the thing doesn't break or fall over when all those shots fail to clear the truss. A rope or simple bar wouldn't do it. Plus as some have pointed out it looks like standard lighting rigging that they have plenty of experience with and access to.

Oh... There's a small possibility that the truss can fall on to robots... *multiple cringes and nightmares*

[Ido_Wolf]

I hope to god this is true, that would save an otherwise terrible game IMO. Especially considering how awesome Rebound Rumble and Ultimate Ascent were. When we've seen the game for the first time I've had the same thoughts as other people around here stated before:

The lack of an endgame is weird.
The game is incredibly underwhelming.
It seems really hard to explain the game to an outsider.

And the fact there's a giant truss in the middle of the arena, only used as some sort of a height border to mark scores, doesn't do any better for the 3rd bullet up here.

Personally I'd love it if FIRST and the GDC tried to emulate a real-life situation where you as an engineer are forced to replan your design because of a new restriction or requirement. Then again, if I were a student in this situation, the reaction would have probably been a little different :P

[magnets]

I may be half brain dead, but it looks like the human player area is down near the respective alliance's goal (so they still would have to walk that 100ft to/from if they wanted to use their human player area. *See figure 2-15

It looks to me that the human who inbounds the ball can do it anywhere. They throw it in from outside the human player zone in the game animation, and the manual doesn't say they have to. The two human players in the human player zone are for decoration, or for passing to.

[AWB]

Can a robot enter the goalie zone on the side they are scoring on?
also, can parts of the robot enter the low goal?:confused:

[Dad1279]

My opinion on truss strength / durability and people feeling it's unnecessary: I think people are overlooking the fact that there will be 3 pound balls shot at the truss at high velocity, multiple times per game. The GDC is probably just trying to insure the thing doesn't break or fall over when all those shots fail to clear the truss. A rope or simple bar wouldn't do it. Plus as some have pointed out it looks like standard lighting rigging that they have plenty of experience with and access to.

And the robots that were blocking, that didn't lower the extension(s).

[crollison]

For questioning if the Truss is too expensive or over-engineered there is another thing to look at. If you are going to span the full distance of the field without sag, you have to use a truss design or a seriously heavy duty steel beam that would require machinery to set into place. An aluminum truss can be set by people and span the distance necessary without sag and provide the durability necessary for robots potentially running into it if they were oversized.

[ToddF]

Also, the cost of one truss assembly made from COTs truss sections is probably way less than two custom fabricated pyramids.

[wilsonmw04]

This thread is an awesome stress reliever. Thanks for the chuckle :-)

[Kevin Sevcik]

Also, Also, there are two options for the Team Element truss. Cheapest option is two strings strung between 2x4s. Which works fine for just making sure you clear it, but you couldn't hang a robot off it.

More expensive option is a truss-like construction of 1/2" plywood all around. Plywood for the sides of the truss and plywood strips for the "angles" of the truss. Which might, maybe, be stiff enough not to sag (much) across a field width span. But you sure aren't hanging any robots off it without turning it into splinters.

But if the GDC is willing to spring an entirely new game on us, they're probably more than willing to make teams waste $100 on wood for a useless game element.

[mrnoble]

But if the GDC is willing to spring an entirely new game on us, they're probably more than willing to make teams waste $100 on wood for a useless game element.

Agreed.

Honestly, the angriest I've felt towards the GDC was when, in 2012, we got to competition and discovered the mechanism we'd developed for pushing down the bridge we built to spec wouldn't even budge the actual bridges, which as you certainly recall, were so significantly heavier that they were entirely different.

[cbudrecki]

my 2¢ about the truss...

these are standard lighting/rigging trusses that I'm sure FIRST has plenty of easy access to (and they really aren't that expensive). The GDC is not only responsible for creating a game, but also making it look good, and ensure that it can stand up to the rigors of competition. Sure a rope or volleyball net would have done the job but 1)it'd look really cheesy, and 2) when one of these big balls hits it, it would give, lose slack, sag, and have to be re-tensioned between each match. The trusses simply look good, and won't ever change dimensions.::cool::

[dubiousSwain]

My opinion on truss strength / durability and people feeling it's unnecessary: I think people are overlooking the fact that there will be 3 pound balls shot at the truss at high velocity, multiple times per game. The GDC is probably just trying to insure the thing doesn't break or fall over when all those shots fail to clear the truss. A rope or simple bar wouldn't do it. Plus as some have pointed out it looks like standard lighting rigging that they have plenty of experience with and access to.

A volleyball net would absorb the force of a ball perfectly fine...

[yash101]

Based on this from 3.1.4



I believe that IF (and it is a big if) there was a change it would be between the regular season and championships. I agree with the many previous posts that disrupting the regular season is unlikely, but since the folks headed to championships should be "the best teams" they could handle changes to scoring mentioned in 3.1.4 and possibly an endgame. All they would need to do is amend R18 " At an Event, Teams may have access to a static set of FABRICATED ITEMS that shall not exceed 30 lbs to be used to repair and/or upgrade their ROBOT. ..." to add an additional 30 lbs for a <new cool endgame>


I also agree that there is a shift in the emphasis of this game which I like. Less experienced teams can contribute considerable points by assisting and super-duper-awesome teams can't score 100 points by themselves.

There is also a change in the balance between robot design and actually playing the game. Referencing 2013 - you can't make a full court shooter that can also climb to the 3rd level of the pyramid and just win by yourself. You have to drive well and interact with teams you don't know in advance (maybe they're great at passing, maybe not). I feel this more closely mirrors real engineering tasks - you know some things in advance and can design to accommodate them (i.e. making a high goal scorer) and some things you have to be flexible with (i.e. counting on scoring a 3 ASSIST CYCLE every time depends heavily on your randomly assigned alliance partners). As a real world example - say you are drilling a long tunnel - you can only scan or core a small percentage of the mountain you want to tunnel through (i bet its expensive). You design a path and feed/speed rates for what you can see, but monitor and adjust based on how the tunneler is running, what rocks actually are coming out, etc.

(Note: I am not a tunnel engineer and am making an educated guess here about how it works)

Cool thread - The conspiracy theorists of CD continue to make me chuckle.

-matto-

I strongl diagree with how you mentioned how a full-court shooter could not have a 30 point climber. If we fitted our robot with a more powerful shooter, we would have been able to do both: climb to the third rung and shoot full court. It all is based off how the team designs and prototypes the robot

[bugynerd]

Did I miss something, or was there actually no release of the Encryption Code in the Kickoff Broadcast?

Did I miss something, or was there actually no close to the Kickoff Broadcast, in the form of a few "good luck teams" words from Dean, Woodie, and Don?

[RufflesRidge]

Did I miss something, or was there actually no release of the Encryption Code in the Kickoff Broadcast?

Did I miss something, or was there actually no close to the Kickoff Broadcast, in the form of a few "good luck teams" words from Dean, Woodie, and Don?

You and/or your kickoff missed something (the end of the broadcast). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWb248RSafo&feature=player_detailpage&list=PLZT9pIgNOV6ZXH3WmbXEK4bwDuPZcMFF3#t=1722

[fb39ca4]

A volleyball net would absorb the force of a ball perfectly fine...

But it would be worse if a robot got entangled in it, which would likely tear the net. A truss, on the other hand, while still allowing the robot to get entangled, would not break.

[ninjosh97]

Just something else I found.
According to R18, you can carry 30lbs of robot parts not in the bag.
Hasn't it been 20lbs in previous years?
Maybe they expect us to need to bring more. :P

[mrnoble]

Just something else I found.
According to R18, you can carry 30lbs of robot parts not in the bag.
Hasn't it been 20lbs in previous years?
Maybe they expect us to need to bring more. :P

No, that is not correct. It's been 30 lbs.

[ninjosh97]

No, that is not correct. It's been 30 lbs.

Ah ok, wasn't sure.
Thanks for the clarification. :-)

[mrnoble]

I feel the need to point out that thinking the GDC might add another game element is not akin to "conspiracy theory", as in Area 51 aliens, vaccinations=autism, and any of the twisty ways of discovering a Water Game. It is much more like adding bonds to your stock portfolio when Ben Bernanke hints that interest rates might be allowed to rise. If anyone is actually building for a game that doesn't exist based on hints that don't say much (if anything) about what that game might be, they are foolish. I don't think there is actually anyone doing that. What I think SHOULD be done is, plan for the game as it is now, and leave room in your thinking and designs for changes that might occur. Hedge your bets.

I think I'll leave this one alone for a while now. If I'm correct, and there is more to be revealed, well, we'll all see it sooner or later. If I'm wrong, then that's fine too, and no one will have to adjust. Either way, it doesn't make much difference to keep looking for more and more obscure (or nonexistent) clues, and keep debating points of conjecture. The idea is clearly out there now. Let's just wait and see what happens.

[MooreteP]

While showing the animation last night to a casual observer of FIRST challenges, their initial reaction as the animation started was: "oh, is it volleyball this year?"

Volleyball also has assists. Imagine an endgame where extra points were awarded for each successive throw and catch over the truss during the last 15 seconds. Or even a bonus multiplier (1.1x, 1.2x, 1.3x) that increased for each successful volley as long as the ball never hit the floor.

It would not require any new ideas or designs that hadn't been considered or were already being created.

It would have a crowd pleasing excitement that would improve this game.

[Racer26]

While showing the animation last night to a casual observer of FIRST challenges, their initial reaction as the animation started was: "oh, is it volleyball this year?"

Volleyball also has assists. Imagine an endgame where extra points were awarded for each successive throw and catch over the truss during the last 15 seconds. Or even a bonus multiplier (1.1x, 1.2x, 1.3x) that increased for each successful volley as long as the ball never hit the floor.

It would not require any new ideas or designs that hadn't been considered or were already being created.

It would have a crowd pleasing excitement that would improve this game.

Neat idea.

[shades23]

As of right now the rules state that therenis no "grabbing, grasping etc. With field elements" so I think that it is very wishful thinking that the rules will change within the six weeks ...that seems to be a huge change for a mid season rule change. But that is just me.. also historically looking back when gas FIRST ever changed the game that much.. usually they are small changes like last year they said there is no throwing white frisbees.. but all in all I suppose it is quite suspicious that there is a truss that can hold ~1800 pounds ...why woud it hold 1800 lbs. When 6 robots weigh about 900 lbs ..

[acrease77]

Aerial Assist is one of the most technically boring challenges we have had so far, and with the smooth gradient of difficulty each year as the league matures. This simply does not make sense, it is clear there is something missing.
...
No major shifts in origination, challenge, or league size. It is weird that this would be mentioned if there was not something further to back this up.
...
However, this is not some weak little rope
...


I believe that there is a pretty significant challenge, that would get you approximately the same amount of points as an end game would, that everyone is missing.

First off, it has been mentioned that the truss can support a lot of weight and they could have just used a rope. A rope or even a 30 foot long metal bar would end up sagging and robots would get caught in it, nevermind that it needs to support cycle lights and posts. It seems pretty easy to put together and transport given any situation and I feel it is a guarantee that a robot will not accidentally break the truss; last year some teams had some issues when the pyramid slightly lifted off the floor.

All this in mind, There is a huge, very challenging, yet very worth it part of the game that people aren't putting their full thought into, and that is passing and catching a ball over the truss. If two robots had the ability to pass and catch over the truss for EVERY cycle, and lets say that each cycle of pedestal->HP->robot zone 1 ->robot zone 2->robot zone 3 lasts about 30 seconds, that's around 4 cycles per match. If the ball goes over the truss, that's another 40 points. If the ball goes over the truss AND IS CAUGHT, that's 80 points, the equivalent of 2 3-assist cycles, and given this game, a proper "end game" score, if the game were to have one.

The pass-and-catch, I feel, is the equivalent of the end game that seems to be lacking from the game, and I think that a lot of people are underestimating how hard it will be to pass a ball from robot to robot, with little knowledge of how far/high alliance members throw their balls and how good they are at catching. As this game is centered around communication and cooperation between teams, I think this will require a ton of effort and communication between all alliance partners to make work, and a lot of testing and practice beforehand, as some people did for the double or triple balance in 2012. That is the spirit of this game, assisting one another, and so I don't believe there will be another catch (pun intended), but I do think passing and catching will be harder than we think.

That's why I think it would be a pretty idea good to coordinate with teams in your area to practice with each others robots during build season. This isn't about building one robot that can do everything anymore, teams will really need to cooperate and know how to work together more than ever.

[Racer26]

As of right now the rules state that therenis no "grabbing, grasping etc. With field elements" so I think that it is very wishful thinking that the rules will change within the six weeks ...that seems to be a huge change for a mid season rule change. But that is just me.. also historically looking back when gas FIRST ever changed the game that much.. usually they are small changes like last year they said there is no throwing white frisbees.. but all in all I suppose it is quite suspicious that there is a truss that can hold ~1800 pounds ...why woud it hold 1800 lbs. When 6 robots weigh about 900 lbs ..

There is a BIG difference between static load bearing capacity and dynamic load bearing capacity. Typically you should double or triple the load bearing capacity for a dynamic load. FIRST Robots? Better believe they're a dynamic load.

[runneals]

My opinion on truss strength / durability and people feeling it's unnecessary: I think people are overlooking the fact that there will be 3 pound balls shot at the truss at high velocity, multiple times per game. The GDC is probably just trying to insure the thing doesn't break or fall over when all those shots fail to clear the truss. A rope or simple bar wouldn't do it. Plus as some have pointed out it looks like standard lighting rigging that they have plenty of experience with and access to.

Looking at how they designed the team on (the truss supports going horizontal, instead of vertical or even just a 12x12 box) support your thought about the 3 pound balls... but wouldn't not making them go vertical just sag the wood?

[JamesTerm]

Personally I'd love it if FIRST and the GDC tried to emulate a real-life situation where you as an engineer are forced to replan your design because of a new restriction or requirement. Then again, if I were a student in this situation, the reaction would have probably been a little different :P

In regards to real-life situation where you are forced to replan your design...
This is certainly true for a software engineer, but is it true for a mechanical engineer? From what I've heard ME tend to design as simple as possible which means to avoid creating something that is expandable (e.g. modular) to be something else. This question is one I've been in conflict struggling with to understand... is it common for ME to have to change designs late in the design phase? or even during implementation?

[Sean Raia]

I laugh as I read people calling this game boring, underwhelming, etc.
Its WAY too early to call that.

But yes I think this will be expanded upon. NOT with a hanging challenge.

[Magnetorb]

G12. An ALLIANCE may not POSSESS their opponent’s BALLS.

I don't like how there's not much that we can do in the way of defense other than deflecting balls and playing goalie. It's almost all offense. Games are more fun when you can steal the ball, etc. It seems like there has to be more to this game.

[UnTrustedTruss]

I don't like how there's not much that we can do in the way of defense other than deflecting balls and playing goalie. It's almost all offense. Games are more fun when you can steal the ball, etc. It seems like there has to be more to this game.

Our team has been thinking of the ball like we thought of the frisbees last year. The game "objective" is to place the Frisbees in the goal, but really the game comes down to off the ball movement. Sure you could steal the ball, but in higher levels it is really coming down to off-ball movement as changing a 100% shooter to an 80% shooter when you are shooting 0% does no good.

[JConnolly]

I do agree that the spontaneous end game could be a factor, but there are a few problems with the idea.

1. I've heard people propose a lot about hanging from the truss, but why would FIRST do that? Everyone would copy winning designs from 2013, and add scores to each team? I may not get it.

2. Others have said things about balancing the balls on top of the truss. A 2008 FIRST Overdrive copy. Again, why? To copy designs and incorporate them into modular robots? Again, I may not get it.

Having said this, there are many ideas to support an "unanticipated" end game.

1. "The truss is unnecessarily robust." We may have to glide along the truss, hanging, from one end to the other, with the assistance of alliance members. The only problem: 2 alliances can do that at once :(

2. The poles that sense the ball flying through the infinite plane above the truss, but also keep the ball in play, maybe unnecessary, but an endgame: like the minibots from Logomotion, but that seems unlikely and again, useless.

I do enjoy ideas of different end games, so keep them coming! I hope they do introduce one, despite my negative points xD

[Kevin Sevcik]

I don't like how there's not much that we can do in the way of defense other than deflecting balls and playing goalie. It's almost all offense. Games are more fun when you can steal the ball, etc. It seems like there has to be more to this game.Blue robot gobbles up the ONLY red ball and holds it for the entire match. Not very exciting. That kind of defense just isn't allowable with the game as it's designed. Not if you want to watch something other than six robots playing keep-away.

[UnTrustedTruss]

Everyone would copy winning designs from 2013, and add scores to each team?

To copy designs and incorporate them into modular robots? Again, I may not get it.

I do enjoy ideas of different end games, so keep them coming! I hope they do introduce one, despite my negative points xD

I think we can all agree that last years endgame did not go as first planned. During the opening Kamen talks a lot about failure, and about how FRC is meant to be a place where we can experience healthy failure, and learn from it. What happened in 2013 was not failure, it could not fail for most teams as they did not even attempt more then one rung. Why not allow a second chance?

As regards to another possible endgame, our team discussed the idea of the return of the minibot, much like you mention. A member had the idea of teams needing to lift and attach a small robot to the beam. This small robot would have to detach and lodge itself, hanging off the beam. This would fulfill both the Ariel and Assist parts of the challenge. :deadhorse:

[Hallry]

:deadhorse:

Finally, a good use for that one :p

[PayneTrain]

Ways to score in Aerial Assist:
Goal Scoring (including all types of goals in all periods of the game)
Assists
Truss Throw
Catch
Fouls

Ways to score in Ultimate Ascent:
Goal Scoring (including all types of goals in all periods of the game)
Pyramid Climbing
Fouls

But I guess there will be a secret endgame because this game is so generic and it needs more scoring opportunities.

[Libby K]

During the opening Kamen talks a lot about failure, and about how FRC is meant to be a place where we can experience healthy failure, and learn from it.

Either refer to him as Mr. Kamen or Dean Kamen. This isn't a newspaper article, nor have you mentioned him previously. Please have some respect for FIRST's founder.


As regards to another possible endgame, our team discussed the idea of the return of the minibot, much like you mention. A member had the idea of teams needing to lift and attach a small robot to the beam. This small robot would have to detach and lodge itself, hanging off the beam. This would fulfill both the Ariel and Assist parts of the challenge. :deadhorse:

It's AERIAL Assist. Seriously, people. It's not that hard to spell.

Also, after pages and pages of speculation, I still see no reason for the belief that FIRST would release such a large aspect of the game after kickoff. Why would they wait until teams have made their priority lists, designed their robots, and maybe even fabricated a good portion of them before adding something to the challenge? That'd just be cruel, and there's no precedent for it.

Why is this even worth so much time and thought? The truss works in the middle of the field because it's strong, will last through the season, and looks clean & nice. Accept it for what it is.

[TucoSalamanc]

Also, after pages and pages of speculation, I still see no reason for the belief that FIRST would release such a large aspect of the game after kickoff. Why would they wait until teams have made their priority lists, designed their robots, and maybe even fabricated a good portion of them before adding something to the challenge? That'd just be cruel, and there's no precedent for it.

This thread is insane, like tinfoil hat crazy, but I don't think it would be cruel if they did (which they won't) add this. A team that is that on the ball to be fabricating this early is going to be able to adapt. For real life engineers, at least here in Israel, have the rug pulled out from them all the time. If FRC wants to be a microcosm of the industry, this is a necessary evil.

[MarcD79]

With all these posts I have yet to see anyone address HOW the Truss is mounted to the floor. There is nothing that I can see in the drawings that will prevent the truss from tipping over if a robot hits it squarely. If robots attempt to hang from it, there could be a swinging motion, which could tip it over.
FIRST would not put anyone's safety at risk by not providing adequate structural side-to-side support if they intended robots to hang from the truss later down the line. Yes there will be a lot of speculation & a lot of hopeful thinking, but maybe we need to look it square in the face & take it at face value. A truss to toss the ball over & remind teams of the height limit.
If on the other hand I have become narrow-minded, then I will eat my words.

[TucoSalamanc]

With all these posts I have yet to see anyone address HOW the Truss is mounted to the floor. There is nothing that I can see in the drawings that will prevent the truss from tipping over if a robot hits it squarely. If robots attempt to hang from it, there could be a swinging motion, which could tip it over.
FIRST would not put anyone's safety at risk by not providing adequate structural side-to-side support if they intended robots to hang from the truss later down the line. Yes there will be a lot of speculation & a lot of hopeful thinking, but maybe we need to look it square in the face & take it at face value. A truss to toss the ball over & remind teams of the height limit.
If on the other hand I have become narrow-minded, then I will eat my words.

Again, don't believe in this but...

That truss is super sturdy. The weight alone will make it hard to tip that thing. If the robots are not swing like monkeys, their weight might actually make it harder to tip. They should act like a pendulum if they are centered. It will take an act of G-d to tip that thing.

[tkell274]

I believe that FIRST will have its minor changes throughout the build and competition season through the updates and they may even finally change the value of scoring at the Championship this year like they have held the right to the past three years. But I find it very hard to believe that they would ever change the game so drastically halfway through the build season. I know by that point most teams are working towards their final designs and are getting ready to debug and to have to totally change their robots would be insane.


Also the idea that one team could still dominate is really not the case this year. It is much more likely that three teams will be able to assist three times and score in the top goal for 40 points and do three cycles than one team doing six cycles for 20. Yes there will be cases in the early qualification rounds that one team could win it by themselves, but in eliminations and later weeks that will not be the case. It is very simple to pass and control the ball this year, all it requires is repeated contact with the ball and then something as simple as ramming the ball to an alliance member that could pick up and shoot.

This will become a very complex game with the strategies of passing, shooting and defending and I think it will start boring like most years do but will end up being one of the more exciting games in recent FIRST history.

And as for the name of the game it's Aerial Assist because of the passing and catching over the trust. Not some super secret endgame in my opinion.

[EricH]

That truss is super sturdy. The weight alone will make it hard to tip that thing.

With a CG well above the floor... and the supports only 2' wide... I don't think it'll have to go far sideways. It's gotta go about 13" sideways... and once it does, don't get under it.


I predict that at some point during the competition season, a field fault will be declared when a robot carrying a ball inadvertently rams the truss and sends it over. The robot in question, sadly, may not survive.

[zacube]

This will become a very complex game with the strategies of passing, shooting and defending and I think it will start boring like most years do but will end up being one of the more exciting games in recent FIRST history.

And as for the name of the game it's Aerial Assist because of the passing and catching over the trust. Not some super secret endgame in my opinion.

Agreed. The game seems rather barren at first glance, but the sheer amount of strategy and cooperation between teams that is required will make it very interesting very fast. Also, the Aerial being the truss makes more sense than most theories about the name. As much as I do like the idea of FIRST throwing a wrench into the works to avoid people just copying Ri3D and make everyone be more creative, I doubt it will happen.

[asid61]

First of all, I think this is a good game. Even though this is only my second year in FIRST, I have looked at many older games, and most are extremely supportive of "independent" robots, not really team players. The challenge this year makes the gap between "super-teams" and rookies much smaller IMO because robots will need to rely on each other. And even less sophisticated robots can compete.
An endgame might be added, but I think that it will have to do with cooperation.

[runneals]

I predict that at some point during the competition season, a field fault will be declared when a robot carrying a ball inadvertently rams the truss and sends it over. The robot in question, sadly, may not survive.

I never once thought about that... since teams can build robots that are 5' and a ball is 2', if the ball is sticking up even ~3" you might have problems...

[Bryan Herbst]

With all these posts I have yet to see anyone address HOW the Truss is mounted to the floor. There is nothing that I can see in the drawings that will prevent the truss from tipping over if a robot hits it squarely. If robots attempt to hang from it, there could be a swinging motion, which could tip it over.
FIRST would not put anyone's safety at risk by not providing adequate structural side-to-side support if they intended robots to hang from the truss later down the line. Yes there will be a lot of speculation & a lot of hopeful thinking, but maybe we need to look it square in the face & take it at face value. A truss to toss the ball over & remind teams of the height limit.
If on the other hand I have become narrow-minded, then I will eat my words.

The good news is that the robots themselves should not be hitting it squarely. The bottom of the truss is 5' 2" above the ground (rule 2.2.5), and the maximum robot height is 5' (R3). Although the field staff are occasionally lenient about a few extra inches on robots in the early rounds, we just have to make sure this isn't the case this year.

I believe that the bigger danger is the balls. A robot carrying a ball could very conceivably hit the truss (and likely will).

For now, I'm going to wait and see how week 0 events turn out. I trust that the GDC did a good amount of throwing balls at the truss to see how sturdy it was, but week 0 will be the real test. If it becomes a danger, I also trust that FIRST will add additional support during week 1 events.

[cadandcookies]

For the truss, also keep in mind that if the baseplate is steel, it weighs around 300 pounds. My team's pit uses a similar truss system with 50 pound baseplates, and it's very difficult to move even though it's essentially an open-sided cube.

I haven't done any calculations for tipping point on the truss, but I'm willing to bet it's a beast to knock over, especially if those are steel baseplates.

[David Brinza]

The good news is that the robots themselves should not be hitting it squarely. The bottom of the truss is 5' 2" above the ground (rule 2.2.5), and the maximum robot height is 5' (R3). Although the field staff are occasionally lenient about a few extra inches on robots in the early rounds, we just have to make sure this isn't the case this year.
<snip>

Robots must pass inspection in order to play. Robot inspectors are responsible for insuring compliance with all robot rules. A 60.5" tall robot violates R3 and will not pass inspection.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Robots must pass inspection in order to play. Robot inspectors are responsible for insuring compliance with all robot rules. A 60.5" tall robot violates R3 and will not pass inspection.I suspect he means they're lenient about size, weight, and all the other inspection requirements during the practice rounds, since robots don't have to pass inspection to play in practice matches. They can be banned from practice matches if the LRI, FTA, etc deem them unsafe, though. Which a 63" tall robot would probably be.

[atucker4072]

There is no secret end game! There is no way the GDC would have teams work on a build a robot then make a major rule change like that. Some teams have robots thay are made of custom sheet metal and if they change it so that there is an end teams will most likely have to redo their entire robot. This means a lot of money is wasted because of something like this. Even teams that just use a standard build system would have to scrap what they have made. There will be no end game and there doesn't have to be the GDC does what they want and what is best for teams.

[Bryan Herbst]

I suspect he means they're lenient about size, weight, and all the other inspection requirements during the practice rounds, since robots don't have to pass inspection to play in practice matches. They can be banned from practice matches if the LRI, FTA, etc deem them unsafe, though. Which a 63" tall robot would probably be.

More or less this. Both the inspectors and the field staff really want to see your robot compete on the field. Sometimes this means overlooking a minor rule violation (maybe one of the numbers on your bumpers fell off) on the condition that you fix it in the near future.

I've also seen plenty of instances in which a team adds something to their robot (such as a frisbee blocker in 2013) during qualifications, and the refs aren't entirely sure if it is within the height regulations or not. If it is not an egregious violation and either it is early enough in the competition or the field is running significantly behind, they might let it slide for a round.

[Libby K]

More or less this. Both the inspectors and the field staff really want to see your robot compete on the field. Sometimes this means overlooking a minor rule violation (maybe one of the numbers on your bumpers fell off) on the condition that you fix it in the near future.

I've also seen plenty of instances in which a team adds something to their robot (such as a frisbee blocker in 2013) during qualifications, and the refs aren't entirely sure if it is within the height regulations or not. If it is not an egregious violation and either it is early enough in the competition or the field is running significantly behind, they might let it slide for a round.

In this case, though - it's obvious that 'taller than 5 feet' isn't something to let slide. It's a significant part of even a preliminary inspection-- because otherwise they wouldn't fit on the field.

[FrankJ]

Remember all the hate & consternation with a simple clarification of the robot size cylinder during climbing the pyramid last season? Clarifying what it meant to be on the bridge for balancing in rebound rumble? I expect the rules at kickoff will be the rules unless there is a glaring issue that needs to be corrected.

[Bryan Herbst]

In this case, though - it's obvious that 'taller than 5 feet' isn't something to let slide. It's a significant part of even a preliminary inspection-- because otherwise they wouldn't fit on the field.

My point exactly. As I mentioned in my first post, it is something that shouldn't (and won't) happen this year. I have 100% confidence in the field staff that I have worked with.

[criogod]

With regards to ri3d type mid level robots at every competition. It team went the same route last year (as rookies) and at championships quickly realized our mistake. :-) I think the trick for this year to throw over the truss, that should completely cut off the basic robots due to the bonus points.

[Bongle]

With all the people calling the game boring, easy, generic, etc., I look forward to all their teams fielding expertly driven robots that can throw, catch, floor-load, hit the goal, and play goalie, as well as have modular possession units (roller claws?) that they can slap onto any of their box-on-wheels qualification teammates in order to ensure a strong alliance in each match.

This game has one of the greatest opportunities for specialization to aid one's alliance in years. In 2011, the top teams laid tubes and then minibotted. In 2012, the top teams shot basketballs then bridged. In 2013, the top teams shot frisbees and then did a 1-level climb (with some exceptions)

This year, you can make a huge contribution to an alliance simply by being a really good catcher or a really good launcher. And since you can be a huge contributor by specializing, I hope we'll see lots of variety in robot designs.

[Riverdance]

I would hate to think that FIRST would do something like add something that drastic at the last possible minute and send thousands of high school students scrambling to make allowances for such a thing. Unfortunately, the more I read this thread, the more convinced I am.

The thing that has me most suspicious is the use of the truss. Money does not grow on trees, and FIRST would not spend that kind of money on a giant, 1726-pound lighting truss from which multiple fully-grown people can hang with no problem, only to use it as a glorified volleyball net.

[TucoSalamanc]

This just got posted to /r/frc but was quickly deleted (by the mods I think). I think this endgame is becoming a Half Life 3 type of thing.
http://i.imgur.com/rzXByWy.png

See the notes. :eek:

[AdamHeard]

The thing that has me most suspicious is the use of the truss. Money does not grow on trees, and FIRST would not spend that kind of money on a giant, 1726-pound lighting truss from which multiple fully-grown people can hang with no problem, only to use it as a glorified volleyball net.

Considering what the fields cost (hundreds of thousands of dollars), this not a surprise to me at all.

The fact that it's COTS is also nice, as they don't need to get some things designed and welded.

$3k per field is not bad compared to the cost of the above engineering and fabrication time. It's also nothing compared to the cost of the field.

[Shocker300]

This speculation is very interesting and it would add a great deal of excitement to the game its self. Right now to me the game seems somewhat boring and a blur to watch.

[snowmobiler9]

This just got posted to /r/frc but was quickly deleted (by the mods I think). I think this endgame is becoming a Half Life 3 type of thing.

See the notes. :eek:

That is a photoshopped version of the truss team drawing provided. The mod more than likely took it down due to it's "incorrect" information.

The actual note says "Glue, staple or screw where neccesary"

[Trailblazer2165]

After watching the animation of the game again, it is illuminating to notice that the four human players stationed at the sides of the field serve no purpose at all, since the third human player of each alliance is the one who takes the ball from the pedestal and puts it into play (inbounding)! So there could very well be more to the game. The comment at rules G11 and G40 imply robot-human interaction of an unknown sort. Here's what they say:

Passing a BALL to a HUMAN PLAYER is within game play and not a violation of G11.
If not actively engaged with receiving or releasing a BALL, we strongly recommend that TEAMS stay fully behind the HUMAN PLAYER BARRIER during the MATCH. (G40)

[bduddy]

After watching the animation of the game again, it is illuminating to notice that the four human players stationed at the sides of the field serve no purpose at all, since the third human player of each alliance is the one who takes the ball from the pedestal and puts it into play (inbounding)! So there could very well be more to the game. The comment at rules G11 and G40 imply robot-human interaction of an unknown sort. Here's what they say:

Passing a BALL to a HUMAN PLAYER is within game play and not a violation of G11.
If not actively engaged with receiving or releasing a BALL, we strongly recommend that TEAMS stay fully behind the HUMAN PLAYER BARRIER during the MATCH. (G40)What is "unknown" about that? The rules and game video both state that robots can pass and receive balls from the HPs.

[rzoeller]

My major motivation for believing in any of these modified-game theories is that this happens in industry all the time, especially in software development. Programming for a company almost always requires you to be following a moving target, with features being added and removed faster than the programmers can even document them.

[bduddy]

I don't like how there's not much that we can do in the way of defense other than deflecting balls and playing goalie. It's almost all offense. Games are more fun when you can steal the ball, etc. It seems like there has to be more to this game.Compared to previous FRC games, there are a ton of defensive opportunities here. You know you can block your opponents' robots as much as you want, right?

[rzoeller]

Compared to previous FRC games, there are a ton of defensive opportunities here. You know you can block your opponents' robots as much as you want, right?

I'd be careful with that though. Defending a robot possessing a ball could be an easy way to be ruled as possessing it yourself, if you make any sort of meaningful contact.

[kmusa]

Considering what the fields cost (hundreds of thousands of dollars), this not a surprise to me at all.

The fact that it's COTS is also nice, as they don't need to get some things designed and welded.

$3k per field is not bad compared to the cost of the above engineering and fabrication time. It's also nothing compared to the cost of the field.

This.

If FIRST wanted a free-standing structure that can span approx 27' [1] without significant droop across the span, that is easily transportable, will withstand balls bouncing off of it, and should survive an occasional impact by a dysfunctional robot, a standard lighting truss is a quick and cost-effective solution.

Just because one could hang 800+ pounds from the center, doesn't mean one must. :)

-Karlis

[1] Yes, the field is 25' wide this year. Determining if they narrowed it slightly to simplify erecting the truss is left as an exercise for the reader.

[Racer26]

Compared to previous FRC games, there are a ton of defensive opportunities here. You know you can block your opponents' robots as much as you want, right?

I agree that Aerial Assist DOES allow for much more physical defence than many recent FRC games, but its simply untrue that you can block your opponents "as much as you want".

<G29>
An ALLIANCE may not pin an opponent ROBOT for more than five (5) seconds. A ROBOT will be considered pinned until the ROBOTS have separated by at least six (6) ft. The pinning ROBOT(S) must then wait for at least three (3) seconds before attempting to pin the same ROBOT again. Pinning is transitory through other objects.

Violation: TECHNICAL FOUL


<Bluebox>If the pinned ROBOT chases the pinning ROBOT upon retreat, the pinning ROBOT will not be penalized per G29, and the pin will be considered complete.</Bluebox>

[bduddy]

I agree that Aerial Assist DOES allow for much more physical defence than many recent FRC games, but its simply untrue that you can block your opponents "as much as you want".I was taking that rule as a given. It's been in FRC for a long time.

I would be surprised if there isn't something in the first Team Update addressing this "rumor".

[kmusa]

I'd be careful with that though. Defending a robot possessing a ball could be an easy way to be ruled as possessing it yourself, if you make any sort of meaningful contact.

Let's see... We have

Herding or launching imply possession.

Bulldozing does not.

Now we may have possession by both robots.

Is it just me, or will all of the referees and drive team coaches be bald by the end of competition season, as everyone tries to understand what truly defines possession?

"Oh, no Mr. Official, Sir. We weren't trying to deflect our opponent's ball into the far corner of the field. We were driving around, and it just happened to bounce off of us."

-Karlis

( who believes that the GDC is waiting for a water game, to finally replace their FIRST dictionary with one from Merriam-Webster )

[dag0620]

Considering what the fields cost (hundreds of thousands of dollars), this not a surprise to me at all.



To add to this, to give you a rough idea on what a field costs, when loaning them for off-season events, teams have to take out insurance for up to $47,000, for the physical field itself. Throw in the electronics and you have to have coverage up to $173,000. :eek: Keep in mind that is just what FIRST would want covered if something happened. The actual prices could certainly be even more.

My point is this, while trusses from most of our perspectives are expensive, in the scheme of what the field costs, they are really a smaller addition.

Remember that most of these fields have to endure anywhere from 5 to 8 competitions during the season, and even longer for off-season events. Plus remember all the abuse they take from on the field action, set-up, take-down, and transport.

FIRST needs something strong that will withstand. By using trusses, they get that, while using a COTS item to save on costs. There's nothing more to the inclusion of them than that.

On a side note: (Something really not important but that has been bugging me)

People keep saying how FIRST has experiences with trusses from using them at regional events. The trusses you see at the regional events are typically owned by the production companies FIRST contracts for the events. It's the production crew that has to fly the trusses, and the curtains, lights, and speakers that hang off of them. That is not the responsibility of FIRST staff or volunteers.

[AndrewPospeshil]

One thing I think is almost definite is that if there's an added end game, it won't be a hanging challenge. This wouldn't necessarily provide any benefits, seeing as this year's hang on the truss allows for only one level (even though most teams did only one level hang last year, there was at least the capacity to do three) and it was literally just done. I don't think FIRST would reuse the exact same objective as last year, so we are left to deduce that there's a good chance the end game will involve the human players at least a little bit. Maybe not to score like last year, but they can possibly grab more than one ball and place it on the field???? I really don't know, but the human players have almost no role and I feel like they will become at least a little more involved later on. Assuming something is added, of course.

[synth3tk]

This just got posted to /r/frc but was quickly deleted (by the mods I think).

Not seeing it on any of the logs/queues. PM me the link to the thread.

[TucoSalamanc]

Not seeing it on any of the logs/queues. PM me the link to the thread.

I browsed the subreddit through imgur (http://imgur.com/r/frc) as I was only looking for visual posts (searching for that offseason drivetrain posted a few days ago). Is there a way it can be in the imgur subreddit, but not the real one? I have a link but don't want the guy flamed, should I PM it to you?

[AndrewPospeshil]

A general request to those who believe a secret endgame can/will happen is for you to kindly keep said speculation out of other threads. There's a chance that it won't happen, and no team should be planning for it to happen (in contrast to being ready for it). Also I think many people would appreciate it if mentioning it in general was kept to a bare minimum (preferably not at all) seeing as it isn't explicitly stated and I doubt everyone wants to keep debating it over and over when they've already formed their own opinions about it.

[Link07]

There will NOT be a "secret endgame" or "endgame added in later." Of course, I'm not the GDC. But it's not gonna happen.

[XaulZan11]

I'd be careful with that though. Defending a robot possessing a ball could be an easy way to be ruled as possessing it yourself, if you make any sort of meaningful contact.

If this is the case, then getting assists will be extremely easy.

[isaacnance2014]

Another scary thing to consider is the goalie zone is absolutely useless. To set up to block shots is not only impracticable with a six inch cylinder, its illegal. Its purposeful contact with an oponents ball :eek:

[synth3tk]

I browsed the subreddit through imgur (http://imgur.com/r/frc) as I was only looking for visual posts (searching for that offseason drivetrain posted a few days ago). Is there a way it can be in the imgur subreddit, but not the real one? I have a link but don't want the guy flamed, should I PM it to you?

Wow, you learn something new everyday! I never knew about that feature of imgur. Yes, please PM me the link.

[BWeldon]

I can't help but think that the name is the clue. What about this challenge, as it is, has to do with anything aerial?

[Libby K]

I can't help but think that the name is the clue. What about this challenge, as it is, has to do with anything aerial?

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20121013015811/degrassi/images/f/f0/Facepalm.gif

The balls. Being shot in the AIR. Aerial.

[Thad House]

Aerial can also be in reference to the 6 inch extension that robots can have, which could be considered an antenna.

[chibi_mechanic]

Though your idea is very valid, I doubt that FIRST would subject us to such torment by throwing new rules and requirements at us mid-season. I may be a rookie, but I've done my research on a lot of past competitions as well as looked through many old posts on this site. I've never heard of a surprise endgame that wasn't heavily hinted. Usually FIRST makes it quite obvious what our tasks must be, and don't like to throw in surprises, nor do they enjoy creating new rules. I have no worries about this game, but I would not discount it entirely. Keep the notion in the back of your heads, but I wouldn't rely on this rumor.

~Rose Emma, Mechanic, Rookie

[Wildcats1378]

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20121013015811/degrassi/images/f/f0/Facepalm.gif

The balls. Being shot in the AIR. Aerial.

It is a pretty small part of the game though... You don't even have the throw them in the air. Does have a small point.

[JosephC]

It is a pretty small part of the game though... You don't even have the throw them in the air. Does have a small point.

Throwing balls can earn you an addition 29 points per run. And even more in autonomous. I'd say its a fairly decent part of the game.

[O_ya]

I would like to point out there is a rule stating that a robot cannot extend past 60 inches unless they are in the goalie zone. So I highly doubt that would be the case.


The truss is approximately 62" (give or take up to 5") above the floor. After you take into consideration the hight of your robot, it will most Lilly be mor than the 5 inch grace zone. So this would be very plausible.

[chibi_mechanic]

Another scary thing to consider is the goalie zone is absolutely useless. To set up to block shots is not only impracticable with a six inch cylinder, its illegal. Its purposeful contact with an oponents ball :eek:
Actually, it's not illegal at all. You are allowed to block the ball, as long as there is no POSSESSION of the opposing teams ball. My team actually looked this up in the rule book today. We assumed the same thing, but apparently this is a bit of a loophole. FIRST might edit the rules though, if their intentions don't coincide with this. But I doubt this will be changed. Otherwise, the goalie zone WOULD be useless. What point would there be if blocking balls was illegal? You might as well pin the robot so that it can't make the shot, but pinning is illegal too... it really sucks that we can't do battle-bots!! Ha ha! But anyways, I do think that FIRST will let this loophole slide. Otherwise defense would be almost non-existent.

[EricH]

The truss is approximately 62" (give or take up to 5") above the floor. After you take into consideration the hight of your robot, it will most Lilly be mor than the 5 inch grace zone. So this would be very plausible.
That's a 0.50" tolerance, not a 5" tolerance. (Or, as it could have been read, a 50" tolerance.)

Which, I might add, is pretty standard tolerance for large parts of an FRC field, which can be expected to vary by an inch or two over the full field.

[AndyBare]

Actually, it's not illegal at all. You are allowed to block the ball, as long as there is no POSSESSION of the opposing teams ball. My team actually looked this up in the rule book today. We assumed the same thing, but apparently this is a bit of a loophole. FIRST might edit the rules though, if their intentions don't coincide with this. But I doubt this will be changed. Otherwise, the goalie zone WOULD be useless. What point would there be if blocking balls was illegal? You might as well pin the robot so that it can't make the shot, but pinning is illegal too... it really sucks that we can't do battle-bots!! Ha ha! But anyways, I do think that FIRST will let this loophole slide. Otherwise defense would be almost non-existent.

I don't really see how this is a loophole. In blocking a ball, you in no way have control of it. You never possess the ball. Goalies are definitely legal, and teams will definitely use this strategy. Hands down.

[chibi_mechanic]

I don't really see how this is a loophole. In blocking a ball, you in no way have control of it. You never possess the ball. Goalies are definitely legal, and teams will definitely use this strategy. Hands down.
I would still consider it to be a loophole because it is not directly stated in the rules, per-say, but is implied. It could be determined a few different ways, if read incorrectly.

[Bongle]

I would still consider it to be a loophole because it is not directly stated in the rules, per-say, but is implied. It could be determined a few different ways, if read incorrectly.

We had a huge argument about goalies and "launching/impelling in a desired direction". Our main conclusion was that it the rule was ludicrously vague.

-Obviously having a goalie blocker pre-deployed and the ball hitting it is fine, or else goalies, the goalie zone, and their extendable blockers are pointless
-But what if you have some sort of rotatable shaped blocker that directs the ball somewhere you'd like it to go? Is that launching and impelling in a desired direction?
-What if you time your blocker deployment so that it punched the ball upwards (maximizing air time), or so that your shaped blocker bounced it hard towards the other end of the arena? Is that launching and impelling in a desired direction?

I think (hope) there will be many, many rule updates attempting to clarify the possession rules.

[brrian27]

We're ready.

[starbound1332]

It hasn't been revealed yet, but I want to know what this year's endgame is. Leave your thoughts here!

[Jay O'Donnell]

Who says there will be one?

[Iaquinto.Joe]

There isn't one. Please speculate in the thread already chock-full of conspiracy theorists and dumb ideas.

[SenorZ]

Read the FRC Blog.
They rarely flat-out lie to us.
http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/blog-Kickoff-and-Other-Fun-Stuff

[orangemoore]

I am going to trust Frank that he didn't lie to our faces in saying that there isn't an end game.

I think this thread should be locked.

[Kevin Sevcik]

BWAHAHAHHAHA.


That is all.

[cadandcookies]

I appreciate Frank more than ever for nipping this speculation at the bud.

[mrnoble]

I appreciate Frank more than ever for nipping this speculation at the bud.

A very straightforward statement, clearly there shouldn't be any question now.

I stayed off this thread for a while, but now have a few things I'd like to share. It became clear to me that there was no hidden game this week. If there had been, I would have expected to see posts or hints from the GDC, and quite quickly; nothing. The kicker was the rules update that said a ball stuck on the truss could be dislodged by having a ref shake it. No way that truss was being used for anything else if it wasn't bolted to the floor! And how would they bolt it, anyway, given the nature of the venues?

Ah well. Occam wins! But people who took this seriously enough to be unkind to others who speculated differently than themselves, on either side of the debate, didn't win in my reckoning. Let's not turn CD into Facebook.

[Koko Ed]

Let's not turn CD into Facebook.
...too late....

[mrnoble]

...too late....

:(

I have cat pictures for you, then...

[Koko Ed]

:(

I have cat pictures for you, then...

So do I. (http://edgpatterson.deviantart.com/art/2014-Lol-Xcat-Pin-Design-425415863)

[Whippet]

So do I. (http://edgpatterson.deviantart.com/art/2014-Lol-Xcat-Pin-Design-425415863)

Holy smokes, your name isn't actually Koko Ed. My life is a lie.

[Koko Ed]

Holy smokes, your name isn't actually Koko Ed. My life is a lie.

Mine too but I did it on purpose.:cool:

[MikeE]

Ah well. Occam wins!

...but it was a close shave

[mrnoble]

...but it was a close shave

:snort:

:D

[kk052]

maybe the secret end game is one of the hints, for example where does the glow in the dark tape measure fit in?

[mrnoble]

maybe the secret end game is one of the hints, for example where does the glow in the dark tape measure fit in?

No use speculating now, friend. Please do your research; you will find that the idea of a new game element has been DEFINITIVELY put down.

Moderators are welcome to close this thread, unless they feel there is more to gain from it being left open.

[MrKamen]

http://i.imgur.com/ojOLOsk.png

FRC Lies once again about the endgame they cannot deny. I have clear mathematical proof of the secret end game. Check this:

The year is 2014

(2 x 3) + (0 x 3) + (1 x 3) + (4 x 3) = 21
(2 / 3) + (1 / 3) = 1
Half life 2 named #1 game of the decade
A decade is 10 years long
10 in base 6 is 14
1 - 4 = -3
3 is the number of robots in an alliance.

FRC is in cohorts to make an HL3 themed endgame this year. If we look into the second level of the original Half Life Blue Shift there is a scientist that looks a lot like Dean Kamen. I think that this endgame is the herald of the end of the world.


FRC is part of the endgame, the worlds endgame.

Hold on, I hear a knocking at my door. I will type the rest out when I come back, but I think they are onto me.

[The_ShamWOW88]

http://i.imgur.com/ojOLOsk.png

FRC Lies once again about the endgame they cannot deny. I have clear mathematical proof of the secret end game. Check this:

The year is 2014

(2 x 3) + (0 x 3) + (1 x 3) + (4 x 3) = 21
(2 / 3) + (1 / 3) = 1
Half life 2 named #1 game of the decade
A decade is 10 years long
10 in base 6 is 14
1 - 4 = -3
3 is the number of robots in an alliance.

FRC is in cohorts to make an HL3 themed endgame this year. If we look into the second level of the original Half Life Blue Shift there is a scientist that looks a lot like Dean Kamen. I think that this endgame is the herald of the end of the world.


FRC is part of the endgame, the worlds endgame.

Hold on, I hear a knocking at my door. I will type the rest out when I come back, but I think they are onto me.


You sir, have quite the imagination.....

[MrKamen]

You sir, have quite the imagination.....

Your just one of those sheeple aren't you. Wake up and smell the numbers

Dean Kamen converted to Binary is:
01000100011001010110000101101110001000000100101101 1000010110110101100101011011100000110100001010

If we remove the 0's we get:
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111

That is like a gigilion zeros, so we have to add or subtract some. I don't really get this part but It is clear there is a link. Here is the proof


1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 = 1
Half life 2 named #1 game of the decade
A decade is 10 years long
10 in base 6 is 14
1-4 is -3
SECRET DEATHMATCH ENDGAME, ONLY THREE ARE LEFT

SEE. IT IS THE SAME PROOF. The feds are onto me, I might not be able to get on to show you the real players in the end times.

[TylerStaudigel]

Has first ever actually intentionally changed the game in such a drastic way mid season?

[Libby K]

Has first ever actually intentionally changed the game in such a drastic way mid season?

No. And Frank (FRC director) directly stated in his most recent blog post (here (http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/blog-Kickoff-and-Other-Fun-Stuff)) that there won't be such a change.