2015 HINT DISCUSSION

[dc74089]

Too lazy to find the post that mentioned it earlier, but I think it warrants repeating that Frank posted a much more... Straightforward version of this hint on the blog in October. Not saying that there isn't something hidden in the video, but Frank has pretty much confirmed that a major rule, something that's been a part of FRC for multiple years now, is changing. My vote is on no teleop this year. Just think, giant metal 6-player FLL. *That* would be change.

http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/blog-NASA-Grants-and-Something-New-for-2015

[g_sawchuk]

Too lazy to find the post that mentioned it earlier, but I think it warrants repeating that Frank posted a much more... Straightforward version of this hint on the blog in October. Not saying that there isn't something hidden in the video, but Frank has pretty much confirmed that a major rule, something that's been a part of FRC for multiple years now, is changing. My vote is on no teleop this year. Just think, giant metal 6-player FLL. *That* would be change.

http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/blog-NASA-Grants-and-Something-New-for-2015
I think no teleop would really take away from team cooperation. Don't think FIRST would ever do that.

[Ryan_Davis]

Too lazy to find the post that mentioned it earlier, but I think it warrants repeating that Frank posted a much more... Straightforward version of this hint on the blog in October. Not saying that there isn't something hidden in the video, but Frank has pretty much confirmed that a major rule, something that's been a part of FRC for multiple years now, is changing. My vote is on no teleop this year. Just think, giant metal 6-player FLL. *That* would be change.

http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/blog-NASA-Grants-and-Something-New-for-2015

This is the most terrifying theory I've read. I'm the sole programming mentor.

[K-Dawg157]

On the frc blog Frank made a comment titled 97 footage for 99 game that read whoops. I guess they did just make a mistake. Here is the link for anyone interested. http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/blog-this-is-a-game-hint

This could totally be a sarcastic comment. He could be saying "whoops, I know I did it wrong, I just want you to think it was an accident."

You never know with FIRST:confused:

[Laaba 80]

The game is named Change. "Change" is coming. This was also Frank's audition tape to be the new movie promo voice over guy.

[notmattlythgoe]

The game is named Change. "Change" is coming. This was also Frank's audition tape to be the new movie promo voice over guy.

I like this analysis, you win.

[g_sawchuk]

The game is named Change. "Change" is coming. This was also Frank's audition tape to be the new movie promo voice over guy.
And this is why game hints can be totally misleading.

The more things change the more they stay the same !!
This puzzles me. Elaborate please on what you mean exactly?

[The_ShamWOW88]

A few theories that may be repeating a bit but:

1) The 97/99 in the video wasn't a simple "mistake". I can't imagine FIRST HQ letting that big of a slip-up go especially when they should know that the CD community will pick up on it immediately. The comment "Whoops" does feel a bit like a "Whoops, silly me, hint hint, cough cough". There may be something related to 97/99 this year.

2) I agree with those that are saying "change" is going to refer to Champs changing. If they are aiming for 540 - 600 teams, I think increasing the field number from 4 would make sense, which they would need at least 6 fields to keep it around 100 teams per.

3) Not sure they'll ever completely re-use a game without any major change (which kind of defeats the purpose, doesn't it?). I think what the recycle bin represents is FIRST recycling numerous past game elements into one game.

January 3rd can't come fast enough...

[Jim Wilks]

The game is named Change. "Change" is coming. This was also Frank's audition tape to be the new movie promo voice over guy.
Or how about "Climate Change" of "Changing Climates" or any variation on this?

[crollison]

Maybe putting too much thought into the recycle bin. Maybe he's just throwing out the 2014 manual. If he put the manual in just a trash can that would be considered irresponsible to just throw out paper instead of recycling. So, maybe just emphasizing that the game will be totally different from last year.

[SGK]

BUZZ THINKS :) :)

HOCKEY RELATED GAME


Some thinks its hockey related due to size of one of the kit of parts box dimensions
When I heard recycle, I googled hockey and recycle --> http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=706747 --> “NHL Green first launched the "Recycle the Game" program with non-profit Restore Hockey in 2012”.
http://www.nhl.com/ice/blogpost.htm?id=18744 -- “As part of the League’s ongoing initiative with Restore Hockey, NHL Green asks all fans attending the 2013 NHL Draft to help us recycle the game!”
Hockey teams change sides after each period -- NEW TO FIRST GAMES


:) :) :)

[g_sawchuk]

BUZZ THINKS :) :)

HOCKEY RELATED GAME


Some thinks its hockey related due to size of one of the kit of parts box dimensions
When I heard recycle, I googled hockey and recycle --> http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=706747 --> “NHL Green first launched the "Recycle the Game" program with non-profit Restore Hockey in 2012”.
http://www.nhl.com/ice/blogpost.htm?id=18744 -- “As part of the League’s ongoing initiative with Restore Hockey, NHL Green asks all fans attending the 2013 NHL Draft to help us recycle the game!”
Hockey teams change sides after each period -- NEW TO FIRST GAMES


:) :) :)
Interesting thoughts. Don't agree with 3, because you can look up a lot of things with "recycle", but it provided some nice insight.

[Evan W]

When I heard recycle, I googled hockey and recycle --> http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=706747 --> “NHL Green first launched the "Recycle the Game" program with non-profit Restore Hockey in 2012”.
http://www.nhl.com/ice/blogpost.htm?id=18744 -- “As part of the League’s ongoing initiative with Restore Hockey, NHL Green asks all fans attending the 2013 NHL Draft to help us recycle the game!”


:) :) :)

You, my friend, are a genius.:cool:

[dellagd]

It seems like lots of people keep arguing that, if a game were to be reused heavily, that younger teams would not be at a disadvantage despite not experiencing the game that a new game is based on. I just can't see how this could possibly be the case.

The first reason stated is that with the proliferation of match video and team video archive online, any team should be able to go online and check out the mechanisms that worked in the past. Well, of course that is true, but there is a very distinct difference between quickly seeing a low quality video of a mechanism and actually remembering all the development process of it and what traps need to be avoided. You might even actually have your past CAD models of your own mechanisms, or the old robot! This is a huge advantage over any younger team who never did any of this.

Another argument is that, well, since you have to re-make you robot every year, those past mechanisms wont help anyway. I mean, lets look at drive trains for example. Teams develop over time designs that they like to use on their robot and may parallels can be drawn on the drive systems of teams year in and out. I'd reckon many of them do some CAD equivalent copy-and-pasting too.

Veteran teams are VETERANS. They have experience in FRC from their past years of competition. They will always have an advantage over very young teams, and making a game very similar to one in the past just heightens this advantage.

From previous years games its apparent that FIRST likes bringing up the rookies by providing easy scoring opportunities. 5 points for drive in auto for example. They want this to continue, so to reuse many game manipulation elements or game pieces are fundamentally not in their interest.

This game will be new in the physical realm, but I suspect the recycling will be of the rules and not the physical elements. He did recycle the manual after all, not a deflated excessive ball or Frisbee.

[LGummy]

Recycling the 2014 game:

adding endgame
some other major change

perhaps, but there was only core gameplay included in the video, none of the endgames showed up in the footage. Maybe no endgame?

[AWoL]

Marc Stollmeyer posted this in the YouTube comments, "Emphasis on robot size and weight increases, alliances including more robots, and a different field surface and shape. Also hinting that the majority of the rules are different from last year... (subtle hint that 1999 wasn't worth showing)

So we will have a new alliance system of robots that are bigger than we've seen before, competing on a non-carpet field that is a different size than previous years, and that bit in the end probably means that reading the rules is more important than ever. Its practically 1999 all over again."

Interesting...

[dradel]

And this is why game hints can be totally misleading.


This puzzles me. Elaborate please on what you mean exactly?


http://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/the_more_things_change,_the_more_they_stay_the_sam e

[Henrique Schmit]

Correct me if i'm wrong, but all of the possible changes mentioned in this (http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/blog-NASA-Grants-and-Something-New-for-2015) post all of the changes he mentioned were covered in the video, except for bumper rules.

That, together with the discussion about the items that teams will recieve on the KOP, makes me believe something about the bumpers is going to change.

[eddie12390]

The hint means that, for the first time in 22 years, there won't be an FRC game.

[MrForbes]

Maybe putting too much thought into the recycle bin. Maybe he's just throwing out the 2014 manual. If he put the manual in just a trash can that would be considered irresponsible to just throw out paper instead of recycling. So, maybe just emphasizing that the game will be totally different from last year.

I tend to agree....although I don't think it's the game, as much as it is the rules. The old rule book is getting tossed into the bin, so we get to start with a completely different (hopefully much thinner) rulebook in 2015.

[JB987]

If we indeed are recycling maybe this will be part of the game...https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=754939197907614&fref=nf

[K-Dawg157]

Usually, the hint is something about the name. It almost never (if ever) has been about the game itself.

I believe the name has to do something with change. Delta sounds cool, and change would be obvious. It's usually Alliterative, (Aerial Assist, Toroid Terror, Diabolical Dynamics) or at least sounds it (Ultimate Ascent) so maybe something that starts with Ch- or sh- for change or starts with "D" for Delta?

I don't think recycling the manual has to do a lot with the game, more about getting rid of last year and starting a new one (like we do every year). The bin maybe significant, but everyone is promoting recycling lately, FIRST will probably start this year as well.

The only thing I can't think of a reason for is skipping 1997 and showing 1999 twice in the clip...

We won't know for 10 days, 23 hours, and 55 minutes... make that 54.

[loyal]

I think that the time to control the robot manually will change. That's why we saw the manual go in the trash. Also the long box with the kop could be a beacon or light that changes blue or red to indicate a robot on each alliance will change sides for end game.

[Kingland093]

I tend to agree....although I don't think it's the game, as much as it is the rules. The old rule book is getting tossed into the bin, so we get to start with a completely different (hopefully much thinner) rulebook in 2015.

That makes sense because wasn't there some blog post about having much simpler and intuitive rules being the goal for the 2015 game?

[rich2202]

Until wifi technology improves, I don't think you are going to get more than 6 robots on the field.

I think "change" might be a reference to what the robots do. To keep with the recycling motif, I was thinking the robot changed the game piece from "trash" to a usable product. However, that would appear to create a lost of waste (one-time use game pieces).

Another "change" from prior years might be the alliance robots working together to assemble the game pieces into something.

[loyal]

That makes sense because wasn't there some blog post about having much simpler and intuitive rules being the goal for the 2015 game?

The blog was about making it easier for the refs.

[audietron]

My thought is that change is a prominent point being made. I agree with the idea that they are just showing that there is a major change from the previous years but I like the idea of possibly having the alliances switch goals, bridges or something about a minute in.

[mandrews281]

I think that the time to control the robot manually will change. That's why we saw the manual go in the trash. Also the long box with the kop could be a beacon or light that changes blue or red to indicate a robot on each alliance will change sides for end game.

I like this thought. It explains the long box in the kit of parts since it's something EVERY robot must have. Prediction: the the word "Change" will be in game name, so perhaps one or more robots change sides during the match.

The other thought that went through my mind is that FIRST is trying to figure out how to manage growth. How I could see this happening:
1. 4v4. In Breakaway, one of the driver stations was at the field end and was smaller than the other two, so the current field can accomodate 4 per side.

2. Not only are the robots getting smaller (and lighter); but perhaps the PIT SIZE will decrease from 10'x10' to 8'x8' to accomodate more teams at a venue. The Palmetto regional had to do this several years ago when they were at Clemson. Made things a bit cramped; but it was workable. This is another of those "unchanging rules" that everyone assumes is a given.

OK there's my 2cents (with "change" to spare).

[notmattlythgoe]

I like this thought. It explains the long box in the kit of parts since it's something EVERY robot must have. Prediction: the the word "Change" will be in game name, so perhaps one or more robots change sides during the match.

The other thought that went through my mind is that FIRST is trying to figure out how to manage growth. How I could see this happening:
1. 4v4. In Breakaway, one of the driver stations was at the field end and was smaller than the other two, so the current field can accomodate 4 per side.

2. Not only are the robots getting smaller (and lighter); but perhaps the PIT SIZE will decrease from 10'x10' to 8'x8' to accomodate more teams at a venue. The Palmetto regional had to do this several years ago when they were at Clemson. Made things a bit cramped; but it was workable. This is another of those "unchanging rules" that everyone assumes is a given.

OK there's my 2cents (with "change" to spare).

I don't think we'll see more than 6 teams on the field at once, adding 2 more robots to the field gets really cramped really fast and makes the game much less enjoyable to watch. Nobody wants to see clusters of robots sitting there because there is no room to move.

[Oblarg]

I don't think we'll see more than 6 teams on the field at once, adding 2 more robots to the field gets really cramped really fast and makes the game much less enjoyable to watch. Nobody wants to see clusters of robots sitting there because there is no room to move.

Moreover, if people thought Aerial Assist was rough on robots, I'm pretty sure a 4-robot-per-alliance game would be even worse. That many more collisions per match, etc.

[thatnameistaken]

Prediction: the the word "Change" will be in game name, so perhaps one or more robots change sides during the match.

I can't decide whether this sounds more amazing or terrifying. Probably both. How would that work seeding wise, though?

[E Dawg]

Could we be seeing the return of coopertition points?

[aldaeron]

Usually, the hint is something about the name. It almost never (if ever) has been about the game itself.


While I love the wild and crazy theories thus far, from my fuzzy recollection the game hints have given the name of the game and nothing about how it is played. The most vivid example I recall is Logomotion.

I agree with many that these items will stay the same
- There will still be 6 teams on the field
- There will be two alliances
- The field will still be a rectangle with drivers at each end wall


two different gamepieces....

If it is time for a change of a similar magnitude to what was shown in the hint video I think having two game pieces makes a lot of sense.

A more difficult non-spherical object (like a football) worth more points with a limited number on the field to keep veterans from running away with the game. The second piece would be an easier to manipulate piece worth less points.

Perhaps one piece is a shootable piece and one is a heavy stackable piece is the other.

In the 5 years I have been doing FRC there has been one piece (yes logomotion had different shaped tubes, but all were manipulatable with a single mechanism). I believe there will be a move to offer more scoring choices such that you cannot do them all (yes, a few teams will be able to). This was a concept debuted in 2013 with the pyramid vs shooting. I loved the pyramid because it was not really an endgame gimmick - you could start climbing at the first second if you wanted to. The issue was that there was no huge advantage to doing the pyramid, especially given the risk of falling.

Now imagine a shooting game and stacking game going on simultaneously. Both have equal points possibility. To get max points on stacking you get bonuses for stack height, some kind of pattern or the top colored game piece. Shooting has a few goal levels and perhaps some kind of bonus if you score a lot of game pieces. This does not have a cooperative element which I think we will see, but I think two simultaneous mini-games is an interesting idea. Overall it would be interesting to make the game so that you can't do it all and have to make strategic choices in your design and at the competition to win.

I also wouldn't mind seeing some reasonable field obstacles or the multi-level/multi-surface ideas others have thrown out. The biggest thing this does in my mind is reduce full speed collisions.

In any case - I can't wait for the 3rd!!!!!

Please continue nuancing the video. It is entertaining. Perhaps you can look for a message in the pixels somewhere =P

-matto-

[Purplesparkleez]

]

That, together with the discussion about the items that teams will recieve on the KOP, makes me believe something about the bumpers is going to change.

If they are messing with the bumpers I might go insane. I had a hard enough time doing them the old way last year.

[Ryan Barnhart]

Certain game changes weren't mentioned, such as changes in field shape. What makes a change important (or not important) enough to be mentioned in the video?

[E Dawg]

In 2015 Lithuania will officially switch to the euro as its currency. In other words its change will change, and that change is coming. Now, the World Bank lists the literacy rate of Lithuanians 15 years of age and older as 100%. 100 degrees Celsius is the boiling point of water.

Water game confirmed.

[Poseidon5817]

The 97-99 switch was not accidental. If it was accidental, they would probably have the same clip. It is from the same match (or at least the same teams), but from different times during that match.

In those games you got higher points for lifting things higher. Arm game with no height limits?

[Oblarg]

The 97-99 switch was not accidental.

Judging by the "Whoops!" response on the blog post, yes it was.

[Jon Stratis]

I didn't read through all of the thread, but there seemed to be a lot of speculation on 3 alliances with a triangular field. Obviously, a lot of people have already pointed out the issues with a triangular field (cost of building all new fields, the AndyMark field).

But it got me thinking of 3 alliances and hire you wet hold prevent a 2v1 scenario. Pure speculation/wishful thinking, but what about 3 alliances of two robots, with the drive teams split so your alliance member was on the other side of the field. Some sort of cooperation game (Recycling the assist concept?), But with an added twist... Some sort of bonus or multiplier that can be earned by one half of the field (ie half of each alliance) working together at least partly. It would add a whole other level to game strategy that we haven't really seen... Like the coopertition bridge, but more in depth.

[notmattlythgoe]

I didn't read through all of the thread, but there seemed to be a lot of speculation on 3 alliances with a triangular field. Obviously, a lot of people have already pointed out the issues with a triangular field (cost of building all new fields, the AndyMark field).

But it got me thinking of 3 alliances and hire you wet hold prevent a 2v1 scenario. Pure speculation/wishful thinking, but what about 3 alliances of two robots, with the drive teams split so your alliance member was on the other side of the field. Some sort of cooperation game (Recycling the assist concept?), But with an added twist... Some sort of bonus or multiplier that can be earned by one half of the field (ie half of each alliance) working together at least partly. It would add a whole other level to game strategy that we haven't really seen... Like the coopertition bridge, but more in depth.

I think this would negatively effect game play by not being able to communicate with your alliance partners during the match. We'd actually lose a lot of the cooperation that was gained from Aerial Assist that a lot of people enjoyed(granted, some didn't enjoy it) and end up back to a game where the robots just do their own thing.

[K-Dawg157]

Judging by the "Whoops!" response on the blog post, yes it was.

That's the thing about text and not voice communication... you never know when someone is being sarcastic. :confused:

He could mean it and say it really was a mistake, but FIRST puts time into these things, so I doubt it was an actual accident.

[dradel]

What's the size of the tube in kop???

[T3_1565]

I like what I'm hearing about those lights on poles in the long box.

Got me thinking including the word change....


What if those are pole lights..... and they denote your team colour.... and at somepoint in the match all the lights switch around and the teams change?????? That would be a major thing and a huge challenge to teams to have to work with everyone on the field and play against everyone on the field at the same time.

[notmattlythgoe]

I like what I'm hearing about those lights on poles in the long box.

Got me thinking including the word change....


What if those are pole lights..... and they denote your team colour.... and at somepoint in the match all the lights switch around and the teams change?????? That would be a major thing and a huge challenge to teams to have to work with everyone on the field and play against everyone on the field at the same time.

How would you determine a winner?

[T3_1565]

How would you determine a winner?

Maybe based on a robots individual contribution to the overall score? Kinda the same way assist points were given out?

EDIT: maybe something like, 1 way to score for everyone. but a multiplier for doing said task with the right coloured robots.

For example, if the task takes 3 robots, and all 3 robots are red. then x3 multiplier. but if 2 were red and 1 was blue that completed the task then only x2 multiplier. All robots that complete the task get the points. and at the end the top 3 robots of the match are the winners.

This way the task can be done with anyone, but promotes teams to communicate with the whole field to accomplish a task for the most multiplier. A team with a strong bot still has to work with the rest of the field in order to win.

[Oblarg]

He could mean it and say it really was a mistake, but FIRST puts time into these things, so I doubt it was an actual accident.

From my observations, people on Chief Delphi vastly overestimate the complexity of these game hints. They're always obtuse and generally unhelpful, sure, but usually fairly simple and straightforward once you "figure them out."

I have never seen speculation about game information in tiny details like that pan out, so I'm fairly confident that it was, indeed, a mistake.

[notmattlythgoe]

Maybe based on a robots individual contribution to the overall score? Kinda the same way assist points were given out?

Were assist points actually done by robot? I thought they were done by total alliance assists.

[K-Dawg157]

Were assist points actually done by robot? I thought they were done by total alliance assists.

When the match scores went up they were for the whole alliance, but seeding took into account the assist points the robot made.

[T3_1565]

Were assist points actually done by robot? I thought they were done by total alliance assists.

This is true. I changed my thought process to my above post quite a bit now lol.

[pimathbrainiac]

Pause the video at 34 seconds in. Notice the wording. "Primary field surface isn't carpet for the FIRST time since 1992"

That was the ONLY time, but due to that wording, I'm thinking we get a weird surface this year.

[Canon reeves]

I think this would negatively effect game play by not being able to communicate with your alliance partners during the match. We'd actually lose a lot of the cooperation that was gained from Aerial Assist that a lot of people enjoyed(granted, some didn't enjoy it) and end up back to a game where the robots just do their own thing.

What if it was 3 alliances of 2, except everyone's partner was on the other side, but we had some inefficient way to communicate, causing the teams to really have to plan and stick to their plan. We would loose the cooperation in person that we are used to, but we would learn how to communicate in situations that aren't ideal. I'm not sure why they would do this, especially since only two teams would win, and it wouldn't make sense for them to create space for more teams in St. Louis.

[Canon reeves]

Pause the video at 34 seconds in. Notice the wording. "Primary field surface isn't carpet for the FIRST time since 1992"

That was the ONLY time, but due to that wording, I'm thinking we get a weird surface this year.

But if they had said the ONLY time, it would make people assume that they would never use another surface, and they wouldn't limit themselves like that, even if they didn't plan to use a different surface anytime soon.

[Shifter]

Perhaps one piece is a shootable piece and one is a heavy stackable piece is the other.

-matto-

Interesting idea...

Three-team red alliance spends first half of the qualification match shooting and scoring balls while the three-team blue alliance stacks and scores tubes. The match pauses at the 60-second mark and the alliances switch roles for the second half of the match. In qualification matches each of the six teams receives the same number of points for each match (no winner, no loser, co-opertition is rewarded). Team rankings for the qualification round are based on total points.

In playoffs, eight three-team alliances take the field one at a time and compete against the clock (no opponent) trying to score the most points possible in the least amount of time. They are free to score any combination of balls and/or tubes. Highest scores advance to the next round.

This lends itself to a six-division Einstein where the top four scoring alliances of the first round move on to semi's.

[Thad House]

Pause the video at 34 seconds in. Notice the wording. "Primary field surface isn't carpet for the FIRST time since 1992"

That was the ONLY time, but due to that wording, I'm thinking we get a weird surface this year.

1992 the field surface was corn. So that is the correct wording.

[Oblarg]

1992 the field surface was corn. So that is the correct wording.

Actually, "only time since 1992" would be correct, too - the only way "first" would be correct but "only" would not would be if there had been some time after 2009 where the primary field surface was not carpet.

That said, I seriously doubt they're going to try an alternate field surface again.

[Richard Wallace]

Pause the video at 34 seconds in. Notice the wording. "Primary field surface isn't carpet for the FIRST time since 1992"

That was the ONLY time, but due to that wording, I'm thinking we get a weird surface this year.
The 2003 endgame required robots to hold a position atop a slippery (HDPE, if I recall correctly) platform at midfield. While that wasn't the primary field surface, it was often quite important to the outcome of a match. Maintaining the endgame "King of the Hill" position was complicated by a new rule for that year, continued down to the most recent game, prohibiting traction enhancements that can damage the field. 71's famous file card drive, which dominated the competition the previous year, made that change necessary.

[Twins Inc.]

First. A hokey game would further make sense because most of the video footage was robots putting stuff into or over goals to score. Like I noticed a LOT of the arms lifting up rubes and balls. So a hockey game I'd different that that, because it would all be one the floor. HONESTLY? the game is going to be all of the floor. Think breakaway.

Second, if the recycling box IS not synonymous with throwing out, then maybe we recycle teams. Like we borrow other teams robots for matches. The ultimate copertition game.

Or third. I like this one the most. There are three teams of two like mentioned before, and the teams are across from each other. And then the end game it switches. So teams on the same side are suddenly on the same team.




I have always dreamed of a game with ultra robust robots that jumped onto a platform for a king of the hill style game.

[Christopher149]

The lottery hasn't happened yet. All FIM districts will have 40 teams.

Well, last year Escanaba had only 36.

[Michael Hill]

I thought about this this morning...what if, say, the red alliance was making a mess and the blue alliance had to clean it up/recycle it? In every other game, both alliances tried to achieve the same goals, maybe this year, one alliance tries to undo what the other does.

[Jacob Bendicksen]

I thought about this this morning...what if, say, the red alliance was making a mess and the blue alliance had to clean it up/recycle it? In every other game, both alliances tried to achieve the same goals, maybe this year, one alliance tries to undo what the other does.

While it's an interesting concept, I don't think FIRST would do something with so little coopertition.

[Fielding S.]

Perhaps one piece is a shootable piece and one is a heavy stackable piece is the other.


Hmm... '03 Stack Attack + '12 Rebound rumble = 2015 Game?

[Tungrus]

Frisbee game is recycled this year

[weaversam8]

Do with it what you may, but the song featured in the video is "Social Disgrace." It is a royalty free track available for 10 dollars from WavTracks.

http://www.wavtracks.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=41&products_id=251

[Nathan(of4564)]

Can anyone list all the years that they made changes and what they are? that might help if there is a pattern.

Increase size/wireless 1993
Weight increases 1996
Alliances 1999
Timed Game 2001
Autonomous introduced 2003
3v3 introduced 2005
Not Carpet (only time since 1992) 2009
Frame perimeter changes 2013
Change is coming
Recycled last years manual
1996 footage was from the 1993 competition

That should be the complete list, plus details that other people picked up on. Should be interesting to see how close our guesses are. Personally I think that the changes above will change yet again, aside from switching to wireless, or, the other theory I've got bouncing around inside my noggin is that perhaps we're doing a reboot of the 1996 game, and that's why they didn't show footage.

[PVCpirate]

I thought about this this morning...what if, say, the red alliance was making a mess and the blue alliance had to clean it up/recycle it? In every other game, both alliances tried to achieve the same goals, maybe this year, one alliance tries to undo what the other does.

While I don't think they'll have a setup where each alliance is designated as "offense" or "defense" for a whole match, maybe we could see a game in which descoring is legal to some extent.

[SoulianPride]

I think they are taking significant things from each game (coop bridge, regolith flooring, assists) and combining it into one massive game.

[billbo911]

Please excuse me if I haven't read all 315 posts at the time I started writing this, so this may have been mentioned already.

I think we may have already previewed the change that may be coming. This would also play into the "co-opretition" aspect that FIRST has been implementing since 2000.

What if the change was 4 vs. 4, as we have seen in elimination rounds as of recent. This might be for qualification rounds only, elimination rounds only, or bot qualifications and elimination rounds.
Not that all 8 robots would be in play at all times, but all 8 may need to participate in each match to some degree.

[Drennael]

What if the change was 4 vs. 4, as we have seen in elimination rounds as of recent. This might be for qualification rounds only, elimination rounds only, or bot qualifications and elimination rounds.
Not that all 8 robots would be in play at all times, but all 8 may need to participate in each match to some degree.

4 vs. 4 would not work in eliminations unless the 8 alliances are reduced to 6, as some events will not have the 32 teams needed in order to play a full set of elimination rounds (i.e. Waterloo). That's in addition to issues with changing the field size mentioned previously that would make 4 vs. 4 impractical.

But hypothetically, I can see one advantage to downsizing to 6 elimination alliances: it would get teams acclimated to potential round-robin Einstein playoffs between the 6 divisions.

[Kevin Thorp]

There's a gospel song titled "Change is Coming". The alternate title is "Hold On".

YouTube link (http://youtu.be/4skytNRrLIA).

Yesterday, a man step to me,
He said how can you smile when your world is crumbling down
I said, here's my secret, when I wanna cry, I take a look around
And I see that I'm getting by

And I hold on
Hold On
A change is coming
Change is coming
Hold on
Hold on
Don't you worry
Don't worry bout a thing
Hold on
Hold on
You can make it
You can make it
Hold on
Hold on
Everything
Everything will be alright

Some people like to worry
Some people like hide
Some people like to run away
From the pain inside
Now it's your business
Do whatever you wanna do
But if it don't work out
Here's what you oughta do

When the troubles of life weigh you down, just lift your head
Yea, yea, yea
When the love you seek is hard to find,
Don't give up, just keep strong, keep ther faith and
Hold on
Change is coming

lala la now hold on

[Cash4587]

Increase size/wireless 1993
Weight increases 1996
Alliances 1999
Timed Game 2001
Autonomous introduced 2003
3v3 introduced 2005
Not Carpet (only time since 1992) 2009
Frame perimeter changes 2013
Change is coming
Recycled last years manual
1996 footage was from the 1993 competition

That should be the complete list, plus details that other people picked up on. Should be interesting to see how close our guesses are. Personally I think that the changes above will change yet again, aside from switching to wireless, or, the other theory I've got bouncing around inside my noggin is that perhaps we're doing a reboot of the 1996 game, and that's why they didn't show footage.


The footage from 1993 was NOT reused for 1996. I found both videos where each clip has come from and it is definitely not a reuse of 1993 footage.

[Nate Laverdure]

Change is coming

lala la now hold on
Chief Delphi people seem to be thinking more along these lines:
Well, I've been afraid of changing
'Cause I've built my life around you
But time makes you bolder
Even children get older
And I'm getting older too
Fleetwood Mac slam!

[weaversam8]

Another important point is that we are moving to a new control system this year. Perhaps this could spell changes in the underlying FMS architecture, including additional robots through some wifi trickery. The RoboRIO is only 330 grams, meaning it could potentially be easily lifted by propellers.

[Cash4587]

I have also found the footage location for the 1997 game and "1999" game used in the hint video. These clips both came from Andy Baker's YouTube (easy to get permission to use) and were a part of the same video. One important thing to note: The footage used for the 1999 segment in the hint video came from a clip of Andy Baker's 1997 video that was BEFORE the clip used for the 1997 video segment in the hint video. This is a quite confusing statement but please reference the pictures for a clearer understanding.

I really do think this has some significance, and despite what others say there is no way that people of FIRST HQ did this on accident. However, this is only my opinion and nobody has any real way of knowing who is right or wrong until Jan. 3. It is fun to analyze things like this though.

[Thad House]

97 and 99 being mixed up has to be big. Just like Cash said, there is no way that was an accident. Especially if the clips both came from the same video.

[Nathan(of4564)]

The footage from 1993 was NOT reused for 1996. I found both videos where each clip has come from and it is definitely not a reuse of 1993 footage.


:yikes: Whoops! Thanks man, I didn't catch that when I posted it the first time. I guess my fingers autopiloted or something. But there was footage reused. I just got the years wrong. '97 and '99. Sorry about the confusion!

[Twins Inc.]

97 and 99 being mixed up has to be big. Just like Cash said, there is no way that was an accident. Especially if the clips both came from the same video.

Earlier, I forgot who it was, someone mentioned that almost never before did the hint talk about the actual game, but actually the name of the competition.

So what does the double of 1997 and lack of 1999 footage relate to the game?

I just though of a name!

CYCLE SWITCH

ha HA! I have no idea what it means though.

[Hallry]

97 and 99 being mixed up has to be big. Just like Cash said, there is no way that was an accident..

Or...just thinking outside the box here, it could simply be a complete accident.

[matthewdenny]

The statement about the field size not changing is correct. If they reused the game, I would hate it unless they modified it well enough. Guess what though? They showed all the years of change. Change happens every year. What if the change is that there is no change? That would be a change. However, I feel that change could refer to the 6 division at Einstein. I think different alliance sizes would be cool, but making it work with the same size field seems unrealistic.

To the vast majority of teams that never get to Einstein, this wouldn't really be much change. Heck, each year most teams don't even get to elims.

[Cash4587]

Or...just thinking outside the box here, it could simply be a complete accident.

I still don't understand how it could be a complete accident if the footage for both 1997 and 1999 segment in the hint video came from the same 1997 video on YouTube.. Also, frank did comment on the blog with "Whoops." with no further explanation meaning it was most likely a sarcastic comment.

[Hallry]

Also, frank did comment on the blog with "Whoops." with no further explanation meaning it was most likely a sarcastic comment.

Usually when I hear/see someone say 'Whoops', it means they made a mistake.

I still don't understand how it could be a complete accident if the footage for both 1997 and 1999 segment in the hint video came from the same 1997 video on YouTube..

How could it be a complete accident? Most likely whoever made the video has not been working at FIRST for over 15 years. They probably had no clue what the 1997 game looked like versus what the 1999 game looked like (Would you?). They were probably just given a bunch of files with clips from the different games to use for this montage, and accidentally clicked on the file for the 1997 game instead of the one for the 1999 game, and never noticed his/her mistake. It's as simple as that.

[Bryce2471]

I haven't read this entire thread, so i apologize if this has already been said, but when viewing the hint this seemed too strange to not mention.

When the video is shown for 2002, it is a clip from one of 71's matches. They were truly dominant, and I've never seen a video of a match where they lost. In the clip shown, they are clearly moving backwards down the field as if they are being out pushed by their opponents. Unless this is a clip of video that I've never seen, I would guess that FIRST deliberately chose to show this clip in reverse.

Just food for thought. :)

Let me know if there is actually a video around in which 71 gets pushed backwards, or if this has already been brought up.

[g_sawchuk]

I haven't read this entire thread, so i apologize if this has already been said, but when viewing the hint this seemed too strange to not mention.

When the video is shown for 2002, it is a clip from one of 71's matches. They were truly dominant, and I've never seen a video of a match where they lost. In the clip shown, they are clearly moving backwards down the field as if they are being out pushed by their opponents. Unless this is a clip of video that I've never seen, I would guess that FIRST deliberately chose to show this clip in reverse.

Just food for thought. :)

Let me know if there is actually a video around in which 71 gets pushed backwards, or if this has already been brought up.
Maybe this year is a "trip back in time?" :ahh:

[Citrus Dad]

I only quickly scanned the multitude of posts, but the theme I see is looking for small incremental changes or specific details in the video.

Instead I see in the video of the listing of fundamental game changes over the years. (They didn't include passing between robots for 2014 for some reason, and included the lack of carpet in 2009 instead.) And then the game manual (which doesn't usually change much) being tossed COMPLETELY. (Recycling is just the environmentally friendly thing to do.)

So think about truly fundamental changes in the game rules that could lead to a completely different string of games for a while.

[cjl2625]

I haven't read this entire thread, so i apologize if this has already been said, but when viewing the hint this seemed too strange to not mention.

When the video is shown for 2002, it is a clip from one of 71's matches. They were truly dominant, and I've never seen a video of a match where they lost. In the clip shown, they are clearly moving backwards down the field as if they are being out pushed by their opponents. Unless this is a clip of video that I've never seen, I would guess that FIRST deliberately chose to show this clip in reverse.

Just food for thought. :)

Let me know if there is actually a video around in which 71 gets pushed backwards, or if this has already been brought up.

It's not in reverse. The timer is ticking down normally, and you can see the balls fall into the goals, not fly out of them.

This is the video where it comes from: http://youtu.be/lAmAnkYDUQM
71 gets pushed back at first, but they ultimately overpower the other alliance and win.

[Boe]

I haven't read this entire thread, so i apologize if this has already been said, but when viewing the hint this seemed too strange to not mention.

When the video is shown for 2002, it is a clip from one of 71's matches. They were truly dominant, and I've never seen a video of a match where they lost. In the clip shown, they are clearly moving backwards down the field as if they are being out pushed by their opponents. Unless this is a clip of video that I've never seen, I would guess that FIRST deliberately chose to show this clip in reverse.

Just food for thought. :)

Let me know if there is actually a video around in which 71 gets pushed backwards, or if this has already been brought up.

It is taken from this clip, they did get pushed back a bit in the beginning.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAmAnkYDUQM

[Bryce2471]

It's not in reverse. The timer is ticking down normally, and you can see the balls fall into the goals, not fly out of them.

You're right. I guess it just caught me off guard to see 71 moving backwards. False alarm. lol

[tindleroot]

I haven't read this entire thread, so i apologize if this has already been said, but when viewing the hint this seemed too strange to not mention.

When the video is shown for 2002, it is a clip from one of 71's matches. They were truly dominant, and I've never seen a video of a match where they lost. In the clip shown, they are clearly moving backwards down the field as if they are being out pushed by their opponents. Unless this is a clip of video that I've never seen, I would guess that FIRST deliberately chose to show this clip in reverse.

Just food for thought. :)

Let me know if there is actually a video around in which 71 gets pushed backwards, or if this has already been brought up.

So, you bring up an interesting point. And no, no one has noticed this yet.
I personally believe that the video is not shown in reverse, since Hammond moved so slow that year that a reverse video would have to be sped up as well but definitely was not. I feel like the backwards motion of 71 must have been the initial push they got before deploying their torque system. But that's all that I can think it is. None of the other clips are backwards.

[D.Allred]

"Change" is coming is not a new message from Frank. It must be something relatively fundamental otherwise it would be anticlimactic.

2v2v2: Possible, but doesn’t seem very much like a sport or easy to explain to an outside observer. We have enough trouble with 2 sets of bumpers. 3 would be madness … unless there are no bumper color requirements.

4v4: That would be tough for a 30+ team district event and crowded without smaller robots.

Recycle last year’s game: Recycling games elements is not new. Recycling last year’s game is just odd. (We’re changing by not changing the game.)

No bag and tag / stop build day: Admin manual says otherwise, unless that gets tossed in the recycle bin.

Change size or weight: Possible. Doubt we would go with larger weight or starting configurations. More weight is more cost and a safety hazard. Lighter would need to be for a specific game purpose. The kit base appears to be roughly the same size.

Change the field: Shape is roughly set. Primary surface could be different. Multiple surfaces and elevations have been previously done.

Match length change: Possible. There was a minor change last year. Autonomous end game could be interesting game change, but difficult for most.

Different elimination tournament format / ranking system: Obviously something has to give for Einstein. Don’t see this changing at regional or district events.

As for the game hint, I’m going with the triangular game piece theory because it fits my predefined paradigm. I’ve been waiting for a Triple Play re-do.

David

[Orthofort]

One thing that I'm not exactly sure about is that the entire video is in 4:3 aspect ratio (hence the black bars), and is also maxed out at 360p. This is what causes the newer game clips to look in a bad resolution and look squished. I don't exactly how youtube handles resolution because it might just be a result of mashing together the older videos (which were likely in 4:3 and bad resolution), or it was intentional.

One thing that strikes me though, is that the final part seems to have actually been filmed in 4:3, since it doesn't look squished. Perhaps this means it was actually intentional? This could be going with the idea of a "throwback", maybe recycling something from an older game, like maybe the '97 or '99 game.

[MrForbes]

One thing that I'm not exactly sure about is that the entire video is in 4:3 aspect ratio (hence the black bars), and is also maxed out at 360p.

Long, long ago....everything was in 4:3 and low resolution. This only changed in the past few years. A high quality video that has to use old content, is also filmed in 4:3. I think it just means that they wanted the hint video to look contiguous.

[tindleroot]

One thing that I'm not exactly sure about is that the entire video is in 4:3 aspect ratio (hence the black bars), and is also maxed out at 360p. This is what causes the newer game clips to look in a bad resolution and look squished. I don't exactly how youtube handles resolution because it might just be a result of mashing together the older videos (which were likely in 4:3 and bad resolution), or it was intentional.

One thing that strikes me though, is that the final part seems to have actually been filmed in 4:3, since it doesn't look squished. Perhaps this means it was actually intentional? This could be going with the idea of a "throwback", maybe recycling something from an older game, like maybe the '97 or '99 game.

How about they just had some guy take video of Frank one day, and they didn't care about the aspect ratio?

[JB987]

There's a gospel song titled "Change is Coming". The alternate title is "Hold On".

YouTube link (http://youtu.be/4skytNRrLIA).

Yesterday, a man step to me,
He said how can you smile when your world is crumbling down
I said, here's my secret, when I wanna cry, I take a look around
And I see that I'm getting by

And I hold on
Hold On
A change is coming
Change is coming
Hold on
Hold on
Don't you worry
Don't worry bout a thing
Hold on
Hold on
You can make it
You can make it
Hold on
Hold on
Everything
Everything will be alright

Some people like to worry
Some people like hide
Some people like to run away
From the pain inside
Now it's your business
Do whatever you wanna do
But if it don't work out
Here's what you oughta do

When the troubles of life weigh you down, just lift your head
Yea, yea, yea
When the love you seek is hard to find,
Don't give up, just keep strong, keep ther faith and
Hold on
Change is coming

lala la now hold on


See post 128;)

[TimTheGreat]

How did previous game hints relate to their respective games?

[Canon reeves]

How did previous game hints relate to their respective games?

Usually just a word of the title, not really hinting much. Last year what we got from the hint was the assist part.

[kylestach1678]

Somebody mentioned the gospel song "Change is Coming" (Hold On). A quick search shows that it was released in 1994. Maybe we should be looking at the '94 footage. Just a guess.

[Canon reeves]

I was watching all the animations, and the 2008 Overdrive animation says a new position was added, robo-coach, yet the hint video doesn't mention this change. Are there any other changes they missed, intentionally or not?

[Oblarg]

How did previous game hints relate to their respective games?

Correct me if I'm wrong on any of these, please:

2014: Numbers that turned out to be birth dates and assist totals for various athletes who led their respective sports in assists.
2013: Some numbers that were apparently a cipher for a poem, whose lyrics somewhat obtusely referenced a "great seal" (one side of the Great Seal of the US has a pyramid), and contained the word "dinner," which is eaten on plates, which are shaped similar to frisbees.
2012: A list of sensors that could be used for real-time goal counting.
2011: A picture of Little Eva standing next to a pole (minibots climbed poles that year), who had a song entitled "Locomotion" (the game was named "Logomotion"), and a picture of the FIRST logo (game pieces were shaped like the shapes from the FIRST logo).
2010: An out-of-context picture of a CAD of a small part of a field element (namely, the ball-return rail).
2009: A picture of a fish. Specifically, a "moon fish." The game was Lunacy. Yeah.
2008: Three of them that year. Teams were given an IR sensor - teams were allowed to give two-bit IR commands to their robots during autonomous that year. Coordinates that pointed to a statue of a tortoise and a hare in Boston (the game, Overdrive, involved racing). And the string "Vet hurdling FIRST tetra", which in addition to using the word "hurdling" (which was used to refer to throwing the track ball over the overpass in the game rules), was an anagram for "drive straight turn left."

Don't remember any other years.

Edit: Fixed some factual errors, added more information.

[Wyatt Jordan]

How did previous game hints relate to their respective games?

Ok I was hoping by looking at previous game hints I could kinda figure out how the GDC comes up with these things, so I started a list of previous game hints and their solutions while waiting for the 2015 hint. Sorry I only analyzed 2014 and 2013 before this year's hint was released. However we can learn several big things from the GDC's previous hints:

1. Game hints can be very intricate or very basic depending on how much time the GDC has. Since this year is a video I'm assuming it's intricate.

2. They threw a curve ball at us, normally its a string of numbers not a video, which annoyed me because there is so much more data in a video making it much harder!!!

3. Based on #1, the solutions to game hints can be a multi-step process, check out the 2013 solution, the people on chief delphi used a cipher (with a slight twist, one # represented 2 different letters) to get a vague riddle which they solved to get the hint, and even then it seemed like a long-shot but it turns out they were correct!

So from this we should learn to never rule out any ideas based on the hint! (unless they are about water games or triple alliances cause FIRST is big on safety, meaning no water, and they already ordered the same fields). This is why I definitely believe the 1999 footage was no mistake, also I noticed everyone found the original footage for each year in the hint quite easily, maybe the hint requires us to look at the original videos and find clues there, like the dates they were uploaded or something,

17626

[Wyatt Jordan]

Correct me if I'm wrong on any of these, please:
2013: Some numbers that were apparently a cipher for a poem, whose relevance to the game still remains unclear, as far as I know.


Download my document if you want to see the full solution to the 2013 hint, it was VERY complicated but the guys on Chief Delphi did actually solve it

Also if anyone has links to the original video footage from the hint for each year please post them, it would be much appreciated and there could be information there on the solution. Usually these things require poking around on the internet

[thatprogrammer]

The poem's relevance to the 2013 hint was covered in a blog by frank. http://www.usfirst.org/comment/908#comment-908

[bduddy]

So, here's a screen from near the end of the video:
http://i.imgur.com/hqpEqNk.png

Something's not right here. The field walls are awfully short (1'8"), and they look to be (correctly) about the height of the recycling bin. But they're almost to Frank's hips! Either his legs are really short... or he's standing in a hole (or the walls are elevated somehow). Does anyone else see this? Or am I just crazy?

[EricH]

Ya know, there is a way to play 4v4, without totally screwing up the wifi. And without crowding the field. But to do it, you gotta take a page out of hockey's playbook.


2015: Line Change.

4v4, with only 2 robots/side active at a time. Alliances can execute a "line change" at any time by bringing one or both robots from the field to the side of the field and flipping a switch. However, alliances MUST use each robot for a minimum of 30 seconds over the entire match or take a penalty of moderate value.

[dodar]

Ya know, there is a way to play 4v4, without totally screwing up the wifi. And without crowding the field. But to do it, you gotta take a page out of hockey's playbook.


2015: Line Change.

4v4, with only 2 robots/side active at a time. Alliances can execute a "line change" at any time by bringing one or both robots from the field to the side of the field and flipping a switch. However, alliances MUST use each robot for a minimum of 30 seconds over the entire match or take a penalty of moderate value.

That would give more rise to the believers in the hockey game.

[EricH]

Something's not right here. The field walls are awfully short (1'8"), and they look to be (correctly) about the height of the recycling bin. But they're almost to Frank's hips! Either his legs are really short... or he's standing in a hole (or the walls are elevated somehow). Does anyone else see this? Or am I just crazy?

Neither. He's standing in midfield and the camera is angled funny. Try it yourself: Put a bar at knee-high, stand several feet in front of it, then have a friend take your picture with the camera up around the top of their head and pointing near your chest. You should be able to have the bar end up at about hip height (or higher, maybe) before it's obvious that the camera is high.

[Michael Hill]

Neither. He's standing in midfield and the camera is angled funny. Try it yourself: Put a bar at knee-high, stand several feet in front of it, then have a friend take your picture with the camera up around the top of their head and pointing near your chest. You should be able to have the bar end up at about hip height (or higher, maybe) before it's obvious that the camera is high.

Yeah, there's nothing wrong with it. I think it's more of a perspective problem.

[mrmummert]

I've met Frank in person and he's only so tall. About the same height as Dean or slightly less. I think Woodie is taller.

[Christopher149]

I was watching all the animations, and the 2008 Overdrive animation says a new position was added, robo-coach, yet the hint video doesn't mention this change. Are there any other changes they missed, intentionally or not?

The carpet changed color for 2010 (green) and 2012 (brown), game pieces change, 2009 introduced the cRIO ... there are tons of unmentioned changes.

[MrForbes]

2009: A picture of a fish. Specifically, a "moon fish." The game was Lunacy. Yeah.

That was the one I got right....

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=779444&postcount=79

.

[EricH]

Correct me if I'm wrong on any of these, please:


2011: A picture of Aretha Franklin, who had a song entitled "Locomotion" (the game was named "Logomotion"), and a picture of the FIRST logo (game pieces were shaped like the shapes from the FIRST logo).
Little Eva, not Aretha Franklin. The column in the picture represented the minibot pole.

A picture of an IR sensor - teams were allowed to give two-bit IR commands to their robots during autonomous that year. Remove "picture"--it was physically sent to teams. You could have up to 4 commands.

[evand4567]

Was on the blog post and noticed this:
http://i.imgur.com/J9hF6nq.jpg
Is it actually an error?

[Wyatt Jordan]

We've been over this 5 times now. We believe that was a sarcastic "whoops" more like a "whoops, hint hint, you're getting warmer" there is no way they did that on accident! the GDC spent some time making this, if you don't think the GDC spends time making the hints look at the solution to the 2013 hint!!!!

Also it's currently our only solid lead, so we're running with it.

[Hallry]

Was on the blog post and noticed this:
Is it actually an error?

To everyone thinking of posting on this thread -
Yes, it might be over 300 posts already, but if people refuse to go back and read the previous pages before posting, new posts are just going to keep going in circles.

We've been over this 5 times now. We believe that was a sarcastic "whoops" more like a "whoops, hint hint, you're getting warmer" there is no way they did that on accident! the GDC spent some time making this, if you don't think the GDC spends time making the hints look at the solution to the 2013 hint!!!!

Also it's currently our only solid lead, so we're running with it.

Or, as I have pointed out, there is just as much (perhaps more so) chance that it actually WAS an accident, and the 'whoops' is simply just a 'whoops'...

Also, frank did comment on the blog with "Whoops." with no further explanation meaning it was most likely a sarcastic comment.

Usually when I hear/see someone say 'Whoops', it means they made a mistake.

I still don't understand how it could be a complete accident if the footage for both 1997 and 1999 segment in the hint video came from the same 1997 video on YouTube..

How could it be a complete accident? Most likely whoever made the video has not been working at FIRST for over 15 years. They probably had no clue what the 1997 game looked like versus what the 1999 game looked like (Would you?). They were probably just given a bunch of files with clips from the different games to use for this montage, and accidentally clicked on the file for the 1997 game instead of the one for the 1999 game, and never noticed his/her mistake. It's as simple as that.

[tindleroot]

There is only one game hint that I can remember (other than the 2013 one mentioned above) that actually gave teams a possible advantage with robot design: 2009 Game Hint #2, which was a cryptic riddle including cities in the US, and teams figured out sooner or later that it referred to ice. Now, more people on the forum were worried about how the competitions were going to freeze and maintain ice (obviously they used regolith instead), but teams could have feasibly worked out the physics behind low-friction surfaces. But that's it.

All other game hints that I recall only hinted at the name or other vague clues that are never any actual help to teams.

[Duffy509]

1993: robots increase in size and go wireless
1996: robot weight increases
1999: robot alliances begin
2001: robots race against the clock
2003: autonomous mode introduced
2005: 3 vs. 3 introduced
2009: primary field surface isn't carpet for the first time since 1992
2013: field perimeter changes

Those are all the changes listed in the video

3-3-2-2-2-4-4. I have a feeling these numbers are important. Game hints have always had numbers and some of these changes seem forced as if they were trying to get these numbers.

[GeeTwo]

Something New – The 2015 FRC Game

Wait. Isn’t the new game always, well, new? Yes, but that’s the point of this note. Every year we try to do a little something different. Sometimes a lot of something different. No one should look at any rules from prior years and think “They would never change that”, because we may. Number of teams on an alliance, number of alliances in a match, match length, bumper rules, field surfaces, robot size, every element from prior year games is carefully considered anew every year. You should make no assumptions. This is all we can say, and all we plan to say on this. All will be revealed on January 3, 2015!*

Frank

*Looking at this, if I were a team, and knew nothing about the 2015 game, I might be nervous. Knowing the game, though, I think there’s nothing to be nervous about. OK, almost nothing.

The last two sentences above Frank's name say that the hint revealed this week is to be taken at face value; don't try to read more into it. That said, I would be a bit surprised if the name of the game doesn't include "change".

GeeTwo

[NHoffmann]

I think that this year is going to have multiple gamepieces with different geometry. Earlier, FIRST tweeted a picture of a gamepiece from Lunacy, then something about Lunacy itself. A major element to Lunacy was exchanging those empty cells for super cells, or "changing" one gamepiece into another. After that, there's this hint. Bill flips to the page of the 2014 manual that's about cycles. Then he says "Change is coming." Probably referring to cycles. Then he tosses the paper into a recycling bin where it will be changed into something else. I think that this year's game will involve exchanging one gamepiece for a different one, with different geometry. It would also be a significant change, because, from what I can gather, every FIRST game so far has had only one geometry type for their gamepiece.

[*Rachelle*]

3-3-2-2-2-4-4. I have a feeling these numbers are important. Game hints have always had numbers and some of these changes seem forced as if they were trying to get these numbers.

A search of these numbers on Google brings up this Wikipedia Article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_%28association_football%29
Football related game? ::rtm::

EDIT: A CTRL F of the Wiki page does not specifically show a 3-3-2-2-2-4-4 sequence.

[SpaceBiz]

The last two sentences above Frank's name say that the hint revealed this week is to be taken at face value; don't try to read more into it. That said, I would be a bit surprised if the name of the game doesn't include "change".

GeeTwo

as stated somewhere in the middle of the 350 some odd posts, many recent games have two words that start with similar sounds.

If the hint is "to be taken at face value" than

Assuming like many hints, It has a reference to the name.

Unless "change" means currency in the form of coins, I would expect "Changeup or exchange (as mentioned earlier)" or some other form of the word "change" to be part of the name.

I am thinking "(insert word starting with CH sound) (Word with "change" as root)"

The word starting with CH (or maybe c sound) would refer to the "change that is coming" or maybe the sport that is the theme of this years game

[JimWright949]

I'm hoping for Tetras again. After 2005 I thought to myself, 'these things are nifty, FIRST will use them again.' So I have a corner of my garage full of them.

-Jim
P.S. 2005 was ten years ago, and ten is such a well rounded number.

[Oblarg]

Remove "picture"--it was physically sent to teams. You could have up to 4 commands.

Ah, yeah, that's right. It's been a while.

[peronis]

I think that this year is going to have multiple gamepieces with different geometry. Earlier, FIRST tweeted a picture of a gamepiece from Lunacy, then something about Lunacy itself. A major element to Lunacy was exchanging those empty cells for super cells, or "changing" one gamepiece into another. After that, there's this hint. Bill flips to the page of the 2014 manual that's about cycles. Then he says "Change is coming." Probably referring to cycles. Then he tosses the paper into a recycling bin where it will be changed into something else. I think that this year's game will involve exchanging one gamepiece for a different one, with different geometry. It would also be a significant change, because, from what I can gather, every FIRST game so far has had only one geometry type for their gamepiece.




I agree with this. Your logic is sound, and it seems like different geometry would be an interesting, fun, and hard challenge.

[Chief Hedgehog]

Thank you Frank and the rest of FIRST GDC - even though I too get wrapped up in the fracas that is the game hint - the fallout is entertaining!

[MissRaptor]

I was in a living room full of people when I watched the game hint video, I needed a fan afterwards or something because all I could get out was (literally almost word for word "Oh my god, oh my god, how could they, this is to much, ahhh, i'm so excited, oh my god, did they just, of course they did, did he throw it away I CANNOT believe he threw it away" I didn't have much success explaining the reaction to those around me, the bewildered expression on their faces stayed. I do hope some serious spice in thrown in this year, always fun for a new challenge. My first year since starting not being a student, hopefully I can find places and time to help out between classes

[lokistormbringe]

so after reading through all 375 posts, the 2v2v2 idea using the 60" object seems legitimate. If the object was a team indicator light, it would be relatively easy to "change" the teams from 3v3 to 2v2v2. First already requires us to have a few mandatory lights so a new one wouldn't be so surprising. Also seeing as how the rules from 2014 were just terrible, we should see a significant change regardless of the other mechanics.

And of course for the random speculation: some game involving one team chasing the next, kind of like the arrows on the recycle sign. Would also tie in with the cycle idea that he flipped to.

[pabeekm]

The whole emphasis on recycling and the use of past video made me go hunting through the video of last year's championships on the FRC teams global youtube page... What's with the video from galileo SF 1 - 2? It has a short clip at the start. :confused:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzoN-maMUcw&list=PLZT9pIgNOV6bqfUzVpPCWsTIdd36NdYQ9&index=63

[Orthofort]

This is more speculation by me, but it would kinda fit if there were dynamic alliances as someone previously mentioned. This would not only explain the odd change from "Elimination matches" to "Playoff matches", because it would require a different format for these matches. It also fits in with the theory that the 3x3x60 object is a team indicator. This also would explain the replacement of the '99 game footage, sort of symbolizing a replacing of alliances, which were first in '99.

This is completely different from that theory, but I think the game piece will be some sort of inner tube, since the '97 game and '99 game both used that shape.

[dellagd]

The whole emphasis on recycling and the use of past video made me go hunting through the video of last year's championships on the FRC teams global youtube page... What's with the video from galileo SF 1 - 2? It has a short clip at the start. :confused:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzoN-maMUcw&list=PLZT9pIgNOV6bqfUzVpPCWsTIdd36NdYQ9&index=63

I expect it was part of one of the sponsor ads they had playing on loop. They went on display when nothing else needed to be shown, so the video guy was probably just snoozing.

[Abhishek R]

This has been posted before by someone else on my team, but I wanted to bring it up again since there seems to be a lot of hype around the "increased alliances" theories...

From the administrative manual (Section 5.1.2 I believe) which has been released for 2015 already:

The manual talks about Bag and Tag, so they are keeping that. It also talks about how Practice Matches are assigned to teams and how it must be divisible by 6 before giving free practice matches, which basically confirms 6 robots on the field.

Obviously, FIRST could have made a mistake in the manual or be hiding things only to give us an updated version later. I don't really know how solidified these administrative manuals are.

[Twins Inc.]

The whole emphasis on recycling and the use of past video made me go hunting through the video of last year's championships on the FRC teams global youtube page... What's with the video from galileo SF 1 - 2? It has a short clip at the start. :confused:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzoN-maMUcw&list=PLZT9pIgNOV6bqfUzVpPCWsTIdd36NdYQ9&index=63

This is a dead end. Here is the link to the image seach
Google Image Search (https://www.google.com/search?tbs=sbi:AMhZZitnbPt7SO9xp9qGmlVbC_1zzhIZg9j 0ODdSWTUDQg9nfJyKObVzykrdviqrgHXPWU50f3qWtfuOLLGSF JAl5n5wgHEAcUeApWrGB46kuHZtPsnQ71LVHj84bmJrttK6zG3 554OZo9zgnDqVmJ5wxqErhxqUwSTKB4zwFSsIU-2iYfnbTTiyogEgQiXuo9_1UHnEQ83HFuNWjJ_1G3OvrNlEV_1V q6VLp441-J2ZI-grQGtAisvYHPJpwIguYQBpzdLMjaDkooNpgEMok5MnVvfGRTsy L2wYqyTtVZ1cBbBsKsVRtDlpQCGoAN_1IPLVaU7g5Fv8usHZva b-yiM9Ara48X2FT6RZ99UqJZR62DxsM96QBIU3kDV47firmbDcKs YDmIegcnaBnxSarY0VVISi33Fq72hPOcxsWnBcnJBXpCXcdIQh _1ipDoumdT_1v0-l4X79V58Fj_1QmUuP7zh0p74QCD_1KCWHJifMN0WDC5CIZgkp0 4swijf2Rbnzsh_1W4Dmx6WtygekttWL1Ws9rbH9hbLQugFKBMP 250JrlOSZut9u9A_1A828WRQERBG_1JmIq68kYt-4Dc2YG9aszVpRJ42B0b7jMrrrYwY5N-Rk-cRvJRKy11KCQI4MtsBugD4mne2G52iXoKE9aImgrXU2olO8Y8l w5Zh0LntIfs5VQRK1V-jrC0PP-fVedD4LDCfUKGgS4_1awLzNztS_1YybmPaqrRxqsF558DaAMcA e-l06xWd2W7aV5RYlarRw2L1PF8xODQASfZ21Y8gzr6iueiFv7Bo J01Nb5JPVhl8ZyPH2Fo2OYfUiMDC3_1ZIM5AGuOZZrJkVqqvA0 hoF7gI_10sKeQ1xQgOBN39ogEbkWk7bauYivLmB1F7kmU1QzvJ kYPXZIL9RhXsbMznfc_1O5YZXaK3uhTzLcvD84mDz5zMZ-UNU6_1Fm2Xo7z8u4h6l6bvrfJb7inpRXQq-5T7ztXtNwFtm45dOayy6L_1lXHpQlsqqKCReCeX4kZCDGJvcp8 2YhofnK8TvSJsvXbkNcS4zwmkcGyIv0cB3V5g9iT6QjiIHTG-hv8MbYayYri-dMV6RiAq3uvXEK0vIuBn_1PKzjmWet8GMZMgyam-plJvFHx_1TXnto2MJUPfX6sm1lSQGG_1uR4agLaR-PFuoi59hjFWl1IEHPbdIfDmIWjHMYdL7BpthQiV98XtxabvZhF mcRpPYjaUVy4-Qm4lB54o7URZyeKhNAVrQMqGZOTAGt_1h6UzuIIHyqkrypBTuM SnUXlYxBUHT0UG9bUohANgD5QmTGHkwfvTLqKTfRXM6lDrYZ0R 6BQIEvGQ5o19BqY)

And here is the video, which is actually kinda funny.
Family Safety Discussion Youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efDW1s6SIZo&list=PLPgjbC2DyFBqcOBblwAtYty0_0EVqlMBi&index=26)

this probably had more to do with the video that it orginally was with. I'm guessing that when FIRST found the video off another user, when they copied the video they also copied a bit of the ad before it! This was fin to find though, and a good find on your part!!

[Mr V]

I'm hoping for Tetras again. After 2005 I thought to myself, 'these things are nifty, FIRST will use them again.' So I have a corner of my garage full of them.

-Jim
P.S. 2005 was ten years ago, and ten is such a well rounded number.

That sounds like the Jim I know.

[Justin Montois]

Here's what I think the thought process was from FIRST HQ regarding the game hint....

-Release a video as a game hint but try to sneak through the fact that we purposely not including footage from the 1999 game
(Knowing we would eventually figure that out)
- Look up the omitted game
- The only mention of the 1999 game on the FIRST website is a short description (Here) (http://www.usfirst.org/sites/default/files/uploadedFiles/Who/FIRST_History/FRC_Game_Summaries_Photos.pdf) which specifically mentions "pucks"

Rubber pucks being too hard, foam pucks are the solution...

http://thestore.gameops.com/category_s/46.htm

Already sold in Red and Blue and at 2 7/8" in diameter, they would fit nicely in a long tube which is being given to teams because the minimum order of 100 is a little high for many teams so FIRST bought a bunch and is helping teams out. A 3" x 3" x 60" tube should do nicely.

Oh, and the "changes" refers to "line changes"

Hockey Game confirmed.

Let's get some sleep before kickoff, good work gang.




;)

[Trevor4004]

Already sold in Red and Blue and at 2 7/8" in diameter, they would fit nicely in a long tube which is being given to teams because the minimum order of 100 is a little high for many teams so FIRST bought a bunch and is helping teams out. A 3" x 3" x 60" tube should do nicely.

;)

I'm not trying to discredit anything you said there (personally I love the hockey game idea and I was actually hoping that last year's game would be hockey), but there might be some problems with the math involved.

Firstly, actual hockey pucks are made to be an inch thick. Of course, this could be different for the foam pucks (the website only gives a diameter, not a thickness), but I feel that, if anything, you could actually compress the foam pucks down to less than an inch thick. Which means that if you believe that the 3" x 3" x 60" object from the KOP is a tube for holding the foam pucks, then each team will be receiving around 60 pucks in their tube. Now the website for the foam pucks says that they each weigh approximately 2 oz. If we take 60 pucks multiplied by 2 oz. each, then we end up with 120 oz. or 7.5 Lb. However, the KOP list states that the 3" x 3" x 60" object weighs only 6 pounds. While it's not a huge difference by any means, but it is significant (a difference of 12 foam pucks).

But that doesn't necessarily shut down that idea. The easiest solution is that both the foam puck website and the KOP list state that the measurements are only approximate. A little change in the weight of each puck (as small as 0.4 oz.) could make up for the difference. Additionally, the tube does not need to be jammed as full as possible with pucks. There can easily be 12 inches of empty space or packaging in each tube to made up for the 12 pucks worth of weigh. And that just seems to make more sense to me because I don't see the need for every team to receive 60 pucks. 60 just seems a tad bit excessive (unless if you plan to go to a hockey game soon and throw them onto the rink).

So really, while there may have been some minor math problems with your idea (clearly someone forget that we always assume that we are working in a frictionless vacuum with spherical cows), they can all be easily justified. So in reality, this post should have made your claim just a little bit stronger. Which is great because now I can say:
HOCKEY GAME CONFIRMED!

[Michael Hill]

Why would pucks be shipped Ina tube rather than just thrown in a box? That makes no sense.

I think more emphasis needs to be placed on the recycling bin, rather than the red herring that another game will be recycled. I can imagine a game where things must be sorted into different bins (I.e. Compost, recycle, garbage). Of course we won't be actually sorting out real garbage, just a representation. The clips from previous years, I think, just are what they represent themselves to be; examples of drastic changes from previous years.

Of course I could be way off base.

[Kevin Thorp]

I think more emphasis needs to be placed on the recycling bin, rather than the red herring that another game will be recycled. I can imagine a game where things must be sorted into different bins (I.e. Compost, recycle, garbage). Of course we won't be actually sorting out real garbage, just a representation. The clips from previous years, I think, just are what they represent themselves to be; examples of drastic changes from previous years.


I'm just going to leave this here: Recycle Robot (http://youtu.be/YHe9U3MLDT8)

[Romano2630]

This is more speculation by me, but it would kinda fit if there were dynamic alliances as someone previously mentioned. This would not only explain the odd change from "Elimination matches" to "Playoff matches", because it would require a different format for these matches. It also fits in with the theory that the 3x3x60 object is a team indicator. This also would explain the replacement of the '99 game footage, sort of symbolizing a replacing of alliances, which were first in '99.

This is completely different from that theory, but I think the game piece will be some sort of inner tube, since the '97 game and '99 game both used that shape.

Check this out:

3 allainces with 2 robots each, a game like 1997. Item D in the kickoff-kit contains allainces flags, representing your allaince. Each team will discover its allaince only in the begining of the match. A fair competition will be - that your teammate is always on the other side of the field. Item C is tubing!.

How's that?
1999 is the first year with allainces. In the frc game hint video FIRST replaced 99' footage with a 97' game. Somebody mentioned it in frank's blog post, and frank replied - "whoops." - which means it was not by mistake.
99' was the first year of the allainces 2vs2, but we already have a 3vs3 and a total of 6 teams on each match - which might be changed to 2vs2vs2. Somebody mentioned here that FIRST changed the name of the elimination matches to 'playoffs' - which supports the idea. By replacing its footage in the game hint video they tell us 99' is somehow connected to 97' and both somehow connected to 2015.
Both 99' and 97' game objects are tubes, which may tell us that this year game object will be, as well, tubes!.

I bet the name of 2015 game will include the word "change".

:)

[Kevin Thorp]

Check this out:
I bet the name of 2015 game will include the word "change".
:)

A Change of Pace

Change Over

Ring the Changes

Sea Change (here come the water game comments)

[MooreteP]

FIRST things FIRST.

Wonderful to see all of the posts from new CD members.

Those who admitted to not reading all of the posts = good.
Those who expected others to correct their laziness = bad.
Netiquette, people! :)

I really should be wrapping gifts right now.

If Justin is close, and I think he is, then I would credit:


HOCKEY RELATED GAME


Some thinks its hockey related due to size of one of the kit of parts box dimensions
When I heard recycle, I googled hockey and recycle --> http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=706747 --> “NHL Green first launched the "Recycle the Game" program with non-profit Restore Hockey in 2012”.
http://www.nhl.com/ice/blogpost.htm?id=18744 -- “As part of the League’s ongoing initiative with Restore Hockey, NHL Green asks all fans attending the 2013 NHL Draft to help us recycle the game!”
Hockey teams change sides after each period -- NEW TO FIRST GAMES


Not "NEW TO FIRST GAMES". Aim High (2006) used the Offense/Defense periods, so we may see a return to that. That may be the "change" mentioned in the clue.
They have Hockey in New Hampshire, don't they?

Supplying teams with enough game pieces in the KoP (the long tube) would also eliminate past complaints about obtaining said game pieces.

I think the "Whoops" was indeed sarcastic. FIRST ain't stoopid.

While I think the recycle bin might be important, (It also has the triangle, delta = change), I am not sure how it would work. It may be a second game piece that multiplies your score if you can stack them. A recycle of Stack Attack (2003).
In that game, teams were rewarded for stacking the "bins", but in the end, they were so easy to tip over that the endgame of "King of the Hill" on top of the ramps trumped the stacking of the bins.

Having two different game pieces would require two different manipulator systems.
This would challenge teams on a decision-making level about resource choices.

I need to find the wrapping paper, tape, and a good pair of scissors.

One problem with pucks, like Ultimate Ascent, is the Real Time scoring model.
Like professional sports, this aspect is important in creating a game with tension for the players and spectators.
The game will likely need to incorporate this.
So, how would the pucks be "counted"?
(Stacking recycle bins would be obvious to a spectator and the scorers.)

You know, gift bags are easier than wrapping paper.

Also, going along with the sports model, will the rules address Robot Concussions?:eek:

#GameHintHijack
#AnEngagingWasteofTime
#EnjoyYourFamilies

[The_ShamWOW88]

Both 99' and 97' game objects are tubes, which may tell us that this year game


99 was played with floppies (round fabric filled with what feels like packing peanuts) but I agree that it might have something to do with placing a game piece in some fashion in both 97 and 99 which involved having their respective game pieces a certain height to score bonus points.

[dradel]

What if we are "recycling " 2 games??? 4 two team alliances ! One set playing one game the other playing the other!! Massive loss of points if the teams reuse their previous mechanisms.

[rlowe61]

After doing extensive analysis of the video, trolling this thread of nearly 400 comments (many repetitive), and many other threads related to game hints, etc…..
In my opinion (we all know what they say about opinions)
1. The missing 1999 video we have all figured out is intentional and we’ll be playing some variation of that game.
2. The long tube in the kit of parts will hold a fiberglass pole(or multiple poles) with a colored or numbered flag (bicycle flag for us older people)
3. The recycle bin utilized in the video did not have any text on it, only the symbol. This to me was not so much for recycling, as repeating. There has been speculation for years about making a game Auto/Tele/Auto. Why not, it would show how good your driver is to get back to the correct position and orientation for a follow-on Auto, or demonstrate your programming and use of sensors by leaving the robot anywhere and having it locate itself.
4. Or the symbol, could be 2v2v2…..I just throw that in for fun….we are too set on our 3v3 on a rectangular field. And there are too many teams who have built and/or purchased rectangular fields to mess with that.

Now that we have all beat the proverbial dead horse, :deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse: let’s all relax for a few days before the madness really begins.

[billylo]

99 - Wayne Gretzky

(any teams from Brantford, ON?)

[K-Dawg157]

What if we started a new view on this matter...

I have read all 390 posts, and everyone seems to be focusing on what has changed for FIRST over the past 23 years...

What if we look at what has been the same?

One part of the games have stayed the same consistently throughout every game.

Just a thought for new perspective. Because if you think about it, "Change is coming" could mean they're doing something they've never ever done before... So what have they done every single year?

There's only ever been one game piece. Different colors, sure, but the same size/ shape. What if there's multiple and that's the change?

Just a thought, a lot of people seem to be over thinking it. :)

[Michael Hill]

What if we started a new view on this matter...

I have read all 390 posts, and everyone seems to be focusing on what has changed for FIRST over the past 23 years...

What if we look at what has been the same?

One part of the games have stayed the same consistently throughout every game.

Just a thought for new perspective. Because if you think about it, "Change is coming" could mean they're doing something they've never ever done before... So what have they done every single year?

There's only ever been one game piece. Different colors, sure, but the same size/ shape. What if there's multiple and that's the change?

Just a thought, a lot of people seem to be over thinking it. :)

2004 had different sizes of balls robots had to manipulate

[The_ShamWOW88]

2004 had different sizes of balls robots had to manipulate

1996 had two different size balls too...

[K-Dawg157]

2004 had different sizes of balls robots had to manipulate

That's still the same shape though...

[The_ShamWOW88]

That's still the same shape though...

You're right that there's never been two completely different types of game pieces.

You could consider the goals in 2002 acting as game pieces, IMO, because they would only score if placed in a particular zone.

[Lledargo]

What if we started a new view on this matter...

I have read all 390 posts, and everyone seems to be focusing on what has changed for FIRST over the past 23 years...

What if we look at what has been the same?

One part of the games have stayed the same consistently throughout every game.

Just a thought for new perspective. Because if you think about it, "Change is coming" could mean they're doing something they've never ever done before... So what have they done every single year?

There's only ever been one game piece. Different colors, sure, but the same size/ shape. What if there's multiple and that's the change?

Just a thought, a lot of people seem to be over thinking it. :)

Conversely, I think they will take away games pieces, and they robots will be expected to interact more with the field and other robots.

For example, there may be a puzzle or maze on the field requiring robots to cooperate to complete it in a timely manner. Someone suggested a fencing game when I proposed no game pieces on reddit.

[John Weissman]

Did anyone notice the hight of the side rail? It looks twice as high than the last few challenges, or am I seeing things wrong?

[The_ShamWOW88]

Did anyone notice the hight of the side rail? It looks twice as high than the last few challenges, or am I seeing things wrong?

No you're seeing right, the side rail is to about Frank's midsection which makes it considerably higher.

I'm not taking too much from that but it could mean a considerable field change.

[Shifter]

Maybe the hint is only meant to convey the name of the 2015 game.

Video of previous year's challenges could be seen as "flashback". Mention of change coming is "foreshadowing".

Game name "Flash Forward"?

What would this have to do with the actual game? Perhaps a zoned field - a robot's turn to play in the "forward" zone would be indicated by flashing lights (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSOEQZORbLc#t=13):

I like what I'm hearing about those lights on poles in the long box.

Got me thinking including the word change....


What if those are pole lights..... and they denote your team colour.... and at somepoint in the match all the lights switch around and the teams change??????

[MooreteP]

Did anyone notice the hight of the side rail? It looks twice as high than the last few challenges, or am I seeing things wrong?

No you're seeing right, the side rail is to about Frank's midsection which makes it considerably higher.

I'm not taking too much from that but it could mean a considerable field change.

Read the thread.
Been discussed.

[The_ShamWOW88]

Read the thread.
Been discussed.

Ow....

[RunawayEngineer]

In regards to the height of the field barrier looking higher than normal:
It is a result of a weird camera angle.
I did an approximation of the the height of the barrier based on the length of the vertical section and the width of the tubing as seen in the video. I think that the tubing in previous years is 2" in diameter (someone can correct me on that).
With that assumption, the height of what is shown is 20.8". There is a little bit cut off by the edge of the screen, but this demonstrates that there won't be much deviation from the 20" that we are familiar with.
Frankly, I'm saddened that someone else didn't already figure this out. Simple math.

[K-Dawg157]

Read the thread.
Been discussed.

This was a little rude... netiquette is nice. Some people do celebrate Christmas Eve and don't have time to read 400+ posts to see what's already been said, but still want their opinion out there... :(

[plnyyanks]

Merry Christmas, from post 354 (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1416565#post1416565)



Something's not right here. The field walls are awfully short (1'8"), and they look to be (correctly) about the height of the recycling bin. But they're almost to Frank's hips! Either his legs are really short... or he's standing in a hole (or the walls are elevated somehow). Does anyone else see this? Or am I just crazy?Neither. He's standing in midfield and the camera is angled funny. Try it yourself: Put a bar at knee-high, stand several feet in front of it, then have a friend take your picture with the camera up around the top of their head and pointing near your chest. You should be able to have the bar end up at about hip height (or higher, maybe) before it's obvious that the camera is high.

[The_ShamWOW88]

Happy Holidays....

[cmrnpizzo14]

If someone could so kindly write a summary post I will quote it and link it back on the 1st or 2nd post of this thread so that people can get a quick summary without having to read 400+ posts. Netiquette is good, but not everyone has free time on Christmas Eve.

[*Rachelle*]

SUMMARY:

Many people believe that a 2v2v2 is possible, or some change in alliance number. Or change in how the Championships operate. "Eliminations matches" are now in the Admin manual as "Playoff matches."

"1999 footage" was not 1999 footage after all. It was from 1997, same match, different angle. When someone commented about it on the FRC blog, Frank commented "Whoops." Most people seem to think it was sarcastic- FIRST couldn't make that big of mistake in people's minds.

Another many people believe that the emphasis on the recycle bin means many past FRC games may be combined to create a new one. A question on this one was about veterans having too much of an advantage.

"Switching sides"- half-way through match you score on the opposite side of the field OR more coopertition and after the half the other alliance tries to finish what the other has started and vice versa.

The hint may simply be hinting at the name of the game, game names often include rhyming and alliteration.

Lots of speculation about the triangle paperclip and recycle symbol representing a Delta symbol- Meaning triangular game pieces. Also, LOTS about hockey. Another idea- two different shapes of game pieces (never been done before, so it would be a big change) Yet another idea, football related.

See Post #347 for results of past game hints.

People thought they could see white floor below Frank, meaning a new floor material- This was proved to not be true.

Andymark says the normal field "has the fit and function for the 2015 game"

Field barrier looks higher- see post #403 (and a couple others) explaining it is a camera angle trick.

Long boxes in KOP could be light bars or (foam) hockey pucks.

Change in size in robots- For example, same base, less weight.

Autonomous at end of match? Longer or maybe shorter game matches?

Maybe less reasons for penalties or less intricate specifications about gameplay to make refs' job easier


Gotta run- Christmas Eve and so much to do with so little time. Hope this is adequate, somebody feel free to copy and add if you find it necesary. Merry Christmas!

[dc74089]

A little play on words just popped into my head: Frank recycled the 2014 manual. The goal of the 2014 game was to complete as many and as high-scoring cycles as you can. I think FIRST might be trying to say something about the cycling aspect of last years game.

To re-cycle (as two words) is to cycle again. It makes sense with a hockey game (which is what seems to be the prominent theory here) that you'd only have one puck in play at a time. Will we be playing in cycles again this year? If it's hockey, I'd vote yes. But that goes against the multiple allusions to this year's game being completely new, so I'm kinda torn. Maybe someone else can go further with this than I can.

[Robert Cawthon]

I will bet with very good odds that the size/number of alliances is not changing.

I am still looking for five team alliances. Two levels of drivers, three on the floor behind the glass, two on a raised platform behind and in between the three. That would also mean smaller robots on the field so that there would be enough room to maneuver. ::safety::

[jvriezen]

Ok, here's a radical 'change' idea-- no more defense. There are two ways I can see this happening: 6v0 or two simultaneous 3v0 on a segregated field (i.e barrier midfield that can't be crossed.) Teams cooperate to score as much as possible, and the same ranking points are awarded to all six teams. (or each of the three teams on an alliance if it is 2 x 3v0.)

Such a big change would have to be justified, but I see several shortcomings that many in the FRC community complain about being solved by this.

1) Bumpers. No need to change bumper colors (even in 2x3v0 field marking can indicate alliance colors). This means teams can build one set of bumpers, permanently attach them (even if it takes two hours to do so) and never take them off. Inspection process would change to weigh with bumpers (maybe a higher max weight) and perimeter check would include bumpers. This speeds up inspection, no dragging bumper covers. or human error in changing bumpers and not fully attaching them resulting in lost or half attached bumpers on the field.

2) Refs - No pinning calls, no high speed ramming calls, and maybe no perimeter incursion calls. Refs could be limited to things like possession limits and such. Fewer subjective calls and less work for them to do.

3) Better modeling of 'real world' robotics technology. Lots of recent robotics R&D are for cooperating bots (swarms, amazon inventory picking, etc.) and the only real world applications for competing robots is in military and police contexts, which are not in keeping with solving the worlds problems.

4) Less bot breakage -- Less robustly built robots won't break down as much, and there will be fewer box bots on the field due to broken appendages.

5) More scoring. Defense is usually just blocking bots movement, and that's not very public spectator friendly compared to scoring. The crowd cheers when a score happens, but not so much when a great defensive move happens.

6) Highlights cooperation -- FIRST has tried various ways to put the cooperation part of coopertition onto the field and with the exception of 2014, most have had at best mixed results in terms of acceptance.

7) Playoff rounds -- Alliances would be 6 teams or more likely 7 or 8 with six playing) for the 6v0 model or 3-4 teams for the 2 x 3v0 model. Playoffs can be multiple rounds with two or three plays per round, and alliance's best round (or sum of rounds) determines subset of teams that advance to next round. Final round is two alliances.

8) Board games (and to a lesser extent video games) have an increasing number of cooperative gaming models.

Downsides:

1) People like head to head offense+defense competition. With the 2 x 3v0 model, you would still get head to head, just no defense.

2) Less opportunity for epic 'fix it' in limited time and other teams helping you fix it scenarios. But things will still break and need fixing with incidental collisions and field wall/element collisions.

Even if this isn't the 2015 game, I think the 2 x 3v0 model is well worth considering for the future.

[MooreteP]

Ow....

This was a little rude... netiquette is nice. Some people do celebrate Christmas Eve and don't have time to read 400+ posts to see what's already been said, but still want their opinion out there... :(

You are correct. Me = hypocrite.
Please accept my apology.

[EricH]

Just to go completely off the deep end...

I suspect that FIRST has completely changed their game design process. The game is now designed in 2 weeks or less, from the reactions to a randomly-chosen hint upon release. Boy are you guys in for it...

[The_ShamWOW88]

that deep end is long gone....

[mrnoble]

I would venture the following, based on the official hint and the other tidbits of real info we have:

1) 95% that the clue is the name of the game. Expect "______ Delta" or "Delta _______" to be our game this year.

2) Better than 50% that we will play with a triangular game piece.

3) 50% that there was a major streamlining of rules and game design.

4) 25% that whatever we play, it is high up.

5) Slightly better than 0%: hockey or football.

6) 0%: that the field will be reconfigured, or that we will have more robots on the field, or a 6v0 game. Ain't gonna happen.

[Anthony Galea]

I would venture the following, based on the official hint and the other tidbits of real info we have:

1) 95% that the clue is the name of the game. Expect "______ Delta" or "Delta _______" to be our game this year.

2) Better than 50% that we will play with a triangular game piece.


I really don't understand the obsession with triangles. Just because Delta is the symbol for change doesn't mean it is 95% possible the clue.

[BlahMaster123]

'Game is coming'...

"Game of Drones".
This is what the game will be called.

This HAS to be it.

[Trevor4004]

SUMMARY:

Another many people believe that the emphasis on the recycle bin means many past FRC games may be combined to create a new one.

Just some more food for thought here. And sorry if I'm restating something here, I read the vast majority of this thread at 3 in the morning so I may not remember everything. I've seen a lot of stuff talking about recycling a game or two in order to create a new one. However, what I'm thinking is what if they recycle elements from 3 games to make a new one? This could make the recycle theory and the triangle theory work with one another. Like it has already been said (many many many times), the recycling bin did have a triangle on it, so maybe that means that the triangle and recycling are related?

Of course, the recycling bin could also be a red herring. When I originally saw the video and starting reading this thread, I didn't think the recycling bin was that important. FIRST is a rather forward-thinking organization, so maybe they simply have someone recycling a paper instead of throwing it away because it is better for the environment. They do produce energy efficient light bulbs for all the teams to sell, so it might not be a stretch to think that the recycling bin is just to encourage people to recycle and actually has nothing to do with the game.

Like I said, just some food for thought.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays everyone!

[mrnoble]

I really don't understand the obsession with triangles. Just because Delta is the symbol for change doesn't mean it is 95% possible the clue.

;)

[mrmummert]

Just playing around with a game name using the word "Change"

Change Up
Change Challenge
Lane Change
Change Over
Maze Change or Change Maze
Change Chase

And for some reason i keep playing David Bowie's "Changes" in my head.

[Zeromonkey]

Some have stated that they think next year's game could be a 6v0 game, saying that this would be a big change in FIRST Robotics, since it has never been done and teams would be so surprised about it.

2001: Diabolical Dynamics.
Straight from USFIRST's History Document:
"Four teams work together as one alliance..."

http://www.usfirst.org/sites/default/files/uploadedFiles/Who/FIRST_History/FRC_Game_Summaries_Photos.pdf

It has been done before. Take this how you like, but I see that as negating the idea. I think it would be fun and a different way for us to play, but I think in this case, the "Change" we are looking for might be different than this, since it has been done.

What I implore you all to consider is what hasn't been changed, not what we have done that could be "recycled". I agree it could very easily be a red herring.

That's my two cents for now, I have seen some great ideas in these posts though.

Happy Holidays FIRST Robotics members! :)

[Duffy509]

SUMMARY:

Many people believe that a 2v2v2 is possible, or some change in alliance number. Or change in how the Championships operate. "Eliminations matches" are now in the Admin manual as "Playoff matches."

Read this and it reminded me that at River Rage , an offseason event in NH, the elimination matches where played as double eliminations. This would be a large change if introduced to districts and change point system for district championships. Thought that this might explain the change from elimination to playoff.

[mhos1997]

Circular field maybe? https://scontent-b-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/10857751_10204243837514280_2300030447315930651_n.j pg?oh=17f987da7b9ea595356c5cf810b04752&oe=54FC8DF3

[stepan]

Circular field maybe? https://scontent-b-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/10857751_10204243837514280_2300030447315930651_n.j pg?oh=17f987da7b9ea595356c5cf810b04752&oe=54FC8DF3

If you look at the FRC Field on AndyMark, it says "FIRST® has determined that this Field Perimeter has the ‘fit and function’ necessary for use in the 2015 FRC." Link: http://www.andymark.com/Field-p/am-2800.htm

[Jacob Bendicksen]

Just playing around with a game name using the word "Change"

Change Up
Change Challenge
Lane Change
Change Over
Maze Change or Change Maze
Change Chase

And for some reason i keep playing David Bowie's "Changes" in my head.

Baseball?

[SciBorg Dave]

I was wondering if anyone read all of Frank's blog. Pizza- you're putting FRUIT on PIZZA. It's madness.

Are these some clues ?

Dave

[Flimsor]

I thought about this this morning...what if, say, the red alliance was making a mess and the blue alliance had to clean it up/recycle it? In every other game, both alliances tried to achieve the same goals, maybe this year, one alliance tries to undo what the other does.

This reminds me of a game I used to play in school that would make for an interesting FRC game. There are bean bags all over the floor (they'd probably use a different gamepeice), and the goal is to toss all the pieces to the other side of the field, and whatever team had the fewest bean bags on their side at the end won. It would certainly be an interesting change if the bots couldn't actually contact the opposing team (assuming there's a barrier).

[Shrub]

I was wondering if anyone read all of Frank's blog. Pizza- you're putting FRUIT on PIZZA. It's madness.

Are these some clues ?

Dave

That isn't part of the official game hint. Although it could mean that teams are getting Hawaiian pizzas in the KOP.

probably not :(

[Brennan4256]

Final thoughts.

Possible Hints:

1. 1:00 video exactly

2. Change is Coming

3. 1997 being shown twice

4. 1999 not being shown

5. Recycle bin

Since 1999's change was adding alliances I think the fact it was not shown leans to a change to the alliance system, or elimination of the alliance system.
A possible way this could happen is teams of two or three could be constantly changing based on time. Example being 1:00 with a certain group then all of a sudden at the next minute your team changes. I understand this complicates playoffs and regional finals, but it is a big change. The coopertition is high with this style without alliances existing. The recycle bin in this idea is just a re herring or a way to symbolize 2014s alliance reliant game is in the trash and a new alliance system will replace.

Any feedback? Even possible?

[Yipyapper]

So much discussion about the illuminati makes me think that the GDC is actually a section of the illuminati dedicated to keeping young adults occupied instead of trying to find them.

Well, not really. That much should be obvious.

(illuminati game confirmed!!!11)

[Anthony Galea]

This reminds me of a game I used to play in school that would make for an interesting FRC game. There are bean bags all over the floor (they'd probably use a different gamepeice), and the goal is to toss all the pieces to the other side of the field, and whatever team had the fewest bean bags on their side at the end won. It would certainly be an interesting change if the bots couldn't actually contact the opposing team (assuming there's a barrier).

So kind of like VEX EDR Swept Away? (The classroom competition)

[Mrcope9]

What if the change is a gamepiece that takes more than one robot to lift/move/manipulate? I personally think it's more likely to be more than one type of object on the field that can be scored. I don't know, I think everyone is overreacting to the hint this year. There's change with every game. GDC is getting to our minds a little early this year.

[Cash4587]

I think they should bring back de-scoring. That'd be cool.

[K-Dawg157]

I think they should bring back de-scoring. That'd be cool.

That would be cool.

[HKlass]

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1409482#post1409482

[Ashley Hartley]

The video is exactly 60 seconds long.
Split 60 up and divide 6 by 2, that gives you 3.
You use 3 lines to make an "H"
The zero (from the 60) looks like an "O"
Put them all together and you get "H2O"
Water game confirmed.

[Bryce2471]

A possible way this could happen is teams of two or three could be constantly changing based on time. Example being 1:00 with a certain group then all of a sudden at the next minute your team changes. I understand this complicates playoffs and regional finals, but it is a big change. The coopertition is high with this style without alliances existing. The recycle bin in this idea is just a re herring or a way to symbolize 2014s alliance reliant game is in the trash and a new alliance system will replace.

Any feedback? Even possible?

This is definitely a cool idea for a big change, but there are some serious issues.

Such as:
How will audience members (and drive teams for that matter) keep track of the alliances?
How will the world champion(s) be determined? Or the winners of regionals for that matter?
What color will the bumpers be?

Fun food for thought before build season starts though! :)

[cgmv123]

I think they should bring back de-scoring. That'd be cool.

That would be cool.

I don't consider de-scoring to be in the spirit of Gracious Professionalism, but that's just me.

[orangemoore]

I don't consider de-scoring to be in the spirit of Gracious Professionalism, but that's just me.

How about a version of 2007 de-scoring. Taking on and off the spoilers.

[EricH]

I don't consider de-scoring to be in the spirit of Gracious Professionalism, but that's just me.

It was legal, within limits, off-and-on up until the 2008 season. After that, the games (other than 2011) have not been conducive to descoring.

[Abhishek R]

I don't consider de-scoring to be in the spirit of Gracious Professionalism, but that's just me.

Descoring was a thing back in 2007, right? I feel it would add another strategic element to the game.

Although I don't consider it to be un-GP in any way, I do feel it could possibly be detrimental to the flow of the game - it could just end up in a tug of war of scoring and descoring the game object. (to take 2007 as an example, you may just be back and forth replacing the black tube, though I wasn't around then, so please correct me if this wasn't an issue at all).

[Alex2614]

I've been thinking about things that have not yet been done in FIRST, and things that are ALWAYS in the game manual, which can be changed or thrown out. Think about things that we usually think about as a FIRST game, that have been prevalent throughout all or most of the past games. Do not be surprised to see if the very idea of the FRC game is changed.. If things that we usually expect from year to year are not there anymore. They already changed the size of the field and got rid of the endgame last year, so what can be changed or deleted from this year that has not yet been changed?

Just some "stream-of-consciousness" thoughts that come to mind.

We have never (at least to my knowledge) had a game in which just one or two game pieces were shared like a traditional sporting event. We've had games in which the pieces were not segregated, but there were many. And we've had games (2008, 2014) where there were only a couple game pieces, but they WERE segregated between alliances. What about a game in which there is one large game piece (oversized hockey puck, for example?) or maybe even two that are shared between alliances. This will make the game easier to follow for audience members.

Also, think back to FIRST Frenzy. It was a "recycling" of sorts of the previous games. We are going into the 25th FRC season, maybe they want to combine some elements from multiple previous games?

I wouldn't mind having the white plastic (it's not acutally regolith, as I've discussed in previous threads), as long as we are allowed to use other wheels. While the challenge in Lunacy was an interesting one, it severely impeded gameplay and made the matches more boring at many events (well, that and all of the other gameplay issues).

As far as things that are usually in the rule manual are things like: robot size, weight, etc. The field size. The "safe zones" and other markings on the field.

A back-and-forth motion kind of game is kind of like recycling the game piece, isn't it? I wouldn't mind that kind of game, i.e. volleyball, hockey, etc.

Essentially, I would not be surprised by anything at this point. Usually when I discount an idea saying "FIRST will never do that" or "it will be impossible to make an FRC game that way," I usually get surprised. I never thought that they would do assists, the "regolith floor," the frisbees, among others were things that I was skeptical of at first. But especially after this game hint, I would not be surprised by ANYTHING they throw at us. As I told my team, brace yourselves for some drastic changes from what we think of as an FRC game. Things that we can usually expect from year to year may be completely different now.

[gavmac928]

One thing that does seem clear to me is that we need to read into the game hint at least a little. Taken solely at face value, ignoring any little details, and if the title wasn't "this is a game hint," the video is essentially exactly the same as Frank's previous blog post about drastic, unexpected changes. I think there has to be something in the video beyond that, because why would they say the same thing twice?

[IronicDeadBird]

I don't consider de-scoring to be in the spirit of Gracious Professionalism, but that's just me.

I would disagree with it being against the spirit of Gracious Professionalism if its part of the rule book I wouldn't argue with it.
Either way the biggest issue with de-scoring is while it can be a fantastic game mechanic without proper balancing most games end up in tug of war and most games I see de-scoring be a really cool mechanic are games with more then two teams.

Looking over at the emphasis on change I am completely befuddled on any catchy names for games with the word "Change">

Does anyone have copies of past rule books and have they thumbed through it?

[Cash4587]

Descoring was a thing back in 2007, right? I feel it would add another strategic element to the game.

Although I don't consider it to be un-GP in any way, I do feel it could possibly be detrimental to the flow of the game - it could just end up in a tug of war of scoring and descoring the game object. (to take 2007 as an example, you may just be back and forth replacing the black tube, though I wasn't around then, so please correct me if this wasn't an issue at all).

I was thinking more along the lines of vex sack attack de-scoring. I think if done right in FRC it could make the matches really intense, more so than they already are.. Just an idea though.

[aphelps231]

There are three characters in "H2O"
There is a "2" in "H2O"
2^3 = 8
There are 8 days left until kickoff
This year's game hint is change
The number of days between now and kickoff is constantly changing
Water game confirmed

[GeeTwo]

What about a game in which there is one large game piece (oversized hockey puck, for example?) or maybe even two that are shared between alliances. This will make the game easier to follow for audience members.

Aerial Assist already involved a lot of pushing and shoving; a single game token would raise this another level or two. If this happens, look for plenty of LOW gear ratios and probably nearly-round robot plan views.

[Karthik]

I was thinking more along the lines of vex sack attack de-scoring. I think if done right in FRC it could make the matches really intense, more so than they already are.. Just an idea though.

If you want see to FRC with Sack Attack like de-scoring, you need to take a look back the 2000 season.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FJFbvHRyco

This is the match that was shown in the game hint video, and is arguably one of the most historic matches in FRC history. Team 47 had been dominant that regional season, and came into Champs as the overwhelming favourites, just as they had in 1998. Unfortunately for them, things didn't work out and they ran into an amazing alliance of 126 and 131. 47 ended up snapping a weld in this match which derailed their dream season, as there was no way they were going to beat the 126-131 combo at less than full strength. The crowd was entirely stunned when they realized what had happened. Definitely one of the most memorable matches I've ever witnessed.

[Joe G.]

If you want see to FRC with Sack Attack like de-scoring, you need to take a look back the 2000 season.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FJFbvHRyco

This is the match that was shown in the game hint video, and is arguably one of the most historic matches in FRC history. Team 47 had been dominant that regional season, and came into Champs as the overwhelming favourites, just as they had in 1998. Unfortunately for them, things didn't work out and they ran into an amazing alliance of 126 and 131. 47 ended up snapping a weld in this match which derailed their dream season, as there was no way they were going to beat the 126-131 combo at less than full strength. The crowd was entirely stunned when they realized what had happened. Definitely one of the most memorable matches I've ever witnessed.

Does anyone know if there's any video footage of the Chief Delphi 2000 machine other than this match? I have heard nearly everyone who was around at this time rave about this robot as among the most dominant and revolutionary in FRC history, and yet the only widely available video is of the match in which they broke down. I'd love to see video of this machine at the top of its game.

[DonRotolo]

One thing that does seem clear to me is that we need to read into the game hint at least a little. Taken solely at face value, ignoring any little details, and if the title wasn't "this is a game hint," the video is essentially exactly the same as Frank's previous blog post about drastic, unexpected changes. I think there has to be something in the video beyond that, because why would they say the same thing twice?In the pre-release interview, Frank stated something like "don't read too much into this hint, because we didn't put much effort into coming up with it".

What that means is that there's no weird hidden stuff, it's just a statement that change is coming, and the 2014 rule book is tossed away.

(It can be argued whether recycling is important to the hint or just the right way to get rid of a pile of paper. I vote the former, elements of past games will be recycled into this new one, but not in a way that gives veteran teams a significant advantage.)

[controls weenie]

Maybe they will change the corny playdough action figures in the kickoff video. I am excited for January 3 but dread watching the corny video. How about a Hollywood production. It is 2015.

[Jared]

Maybe they will change the corny playdough action figures in the kickoff video. I am excited for January 3 but dread watching the corny video. How about a Hollywood production. It is 2015.

I think they stick with the simpler animation because they don't want to hire somebody outside of FIRST to do it. As far as I know, the people who make the animation are already FIRST volunteers or employees. I'm okay with that because it means that our registration fees go toward our events instead of toward an overview of the game video that doesn't provide official rules.

Personally, I'm impressed with the quality of the animation, especially when compared to some of the team animation submissions.

[Abhishek R]

Maybe they will change the corny playdough action figures in the kickoff video. I am excited for January 3 but dread watching the corny video. How about a Hollywood production. It is 2015.

I think the primary purpose is that they represent a clear and visual way of quickly explaining the game and how it works. They do a great job of accomplishing that task. And honestly, the animation is pretty good, with a bit of humorous robots.

[AllenGregoryIV]

I think the primary purpose is that they represent a clear and visual way of quickly explaining the game and how it works. They do a great job of accomplishing that task. And honestly, the animation is pretty good, with a bit of humorous robots.

Lavery had a picture of Plowie with the circle and cross through it, so I wouldn't be surprised to see a different animation. That will make me sad though.

[magnets]

Lavery had a picture of Plowie with the circle and cross through it, so I wouldn't be surprised to see a different animation. That will make me sad though.

Where'd you see that?

I will be so sad if the game animation isn't Dave's typical awesomeness. Sure, the game animations are similar "Welcome to the 20xx FIRST robotics competition, and this year's game...., .... is played on a 27 by 54 foot field with alliances of three teams each operating their robots...", but that's why I love them.

[Poseidon5817]

2015 is the year Back to the Future 2 takes place. Maybe the change is that all drivers and human players have to wear self-tying shoelaceless shoes.

[Ekcrbe]

I want to make a point for all of the speculation going on here about some pretty far-fetched ideas of what this game could have in store for us.

Yes, I know "change is coming." But please keep recent history in mind.

I think, and I think most people would agree, that the last three games have been three of the most exciting, and--at times--most well-crafted games in FRC history (especially Rebound Rumble, my personal favorite). I know a lot of people get down on the rules that really bound up Aerial Assist and caused more penalties than any of us would have liked, but take that complaint for what it is--a minor element to a game that was, at its height, spectacular to say the least. Last year's Einstein matches absolutely represented the pinnacle of everything FIRST has been trying to reach in game design for 23 seasons. Spectator-friendliness has never been better, and I think that's reflected in the recent growth of the programs and the overall perceived happiness among the FIRST community.

It seems like the GDC has been working towards more sport-like games in recent years, dating back to perhaps Breakaway, and now I think they're really hitting their stride. It's two teams (who really have to work together, by the way) duking it out together on a rectangular field playing a game with a straightforward objective yet strategically complex composition that can provide the suspense and drama that even an armchair quarterback can appreciate. The GDC is refining its craft and getting to be pretty good.

Why on Earth, then, would they want to throw all that away and go to something radically different like three alliances or one alliance or anything else that would be, at least in my mind, a huge step backwards--a regression from what has gotten them here?

I think the hint is really, honestly as low-key as Frank tried to make it sound when he said
Looking at this, if I were a team, and knew nothing about the 2015 game, I might be nervous. Knowing the game, though, I think there’s nothing to be nervous about. OK, almost nothing.

It's about reexamining and streamlining the rules, it's about a new element of the game that hasn't existed before, or it's about updating the match structure to accommodate one of the other two. But it won't be about FIRST deciding to jump out of their wheelhouse for something untested or previously ill-received instead.

TL;DR Now that the GDC has struck gold, don't expect them to leave for greener pastures any time soon.

Happy holidays

[EricH]

Where'd you see that?It was on Facebook--my dad showed me.

Lavery had a picture of Plowie with the circle and cross through it, so I wouldn't be surprised to see a different animation. That will make me sad though.
What my dad and I were thinking was that either Dozer was doing something he shouldn't have been (no background, so no way to tell) and got caught, OR Dozer will once again get beaned by X field element/game object/partner robot, OR both. That's a CLASSIC Dave hint.

[Richard Wallace]

Lavery had a picture of Plowie with the circle and cross through it, ...Maybe the GDC has created a "bulldozing" foul? :confused:

[The_ShamWOW88]

I still think it's two game-pieces.....call me far-fetched if you want to....

[Libby K]

...a picture of Plowie....

Just FYI as this discussion continues, his name is officially Dozer. :)

[mwmac]

Keeping my take on the hint at a very basic or low level...the height of the goal is approximately the same as the lip of a blue recycling bin...

[matthewdenny]

Is their any reason it couldn't be 1v1v1v1v1v1 ?

[EricH]

Is their any reason it couldn't be 1v1v1v1v1v1 ?

See 1v1v1, and "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".

What'll realistically happen is that the top team will end up playing 1v5, or maybe it's 2v4 or 1v2 and 1v2, with no coordination at all.

[matthewdenny]

I was thinking what if say there were 100 objects on the field, and 6 scoring bins. You each get a point for each object in your bin. It wouldn't make since to play d with the time lost and others scoring while you do it. Would it?

[EricH]

I was thinking what if say there were 100 objects on the field, and 6 scoring bins. You each get a point for each object in your bin. It wouldn't make since to play d with the time lost and others scoring while you do it. Would it?

It would. It's a lot easier to win if you can shut down 1114 or 254. With there being 5 robots all thinking the same thing, chances are HUGE that you'll get a de facto 5v1, where 2-3 are playing D and the rest are scoring, swapping roles every now and again.

And then there's the ranking problem--I'll just leave that to Andy Grady's explanation (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39770) of the last year that was used.

[MaadHatter]

The video said that change is coming, so I doubt they're going to recycle much from the previous years, doesn't really connect with the hint.

The throwing away of the game rules probably means they're changing something big, which could mean anything. Number of alliances, number of teams in the alliance, large change in field size or shape, large change in robot size or shape, or something else. The hint actually tells us less about the game then before, because before at least we could kind of count on most of the general rules being the same.

Also, I doubt it'll be a projectile game, they wouldn't say change is coming and then give us the fourth projectile/shooting game in a row. Probably better for newer teams so that they're not going up against teams that have been working on some sort of shooting mechanism for the past 3 years.

[GKrotkov]

I was thinking what if say there were 100 objects on the field, and 6 scoring bins. You each get a point for each object in your bin. It wouldn't make since to play d with the time lost and others scoring while you do it. Would it?

Also, on a more practical note - I'd guess that most game pieces that are small enough and cheap enough to be produced upwards of 100 per event would probably be so small and easy to manipulate that a good team might actually be able to score a significant portion of that - enough to start to crowd out other teams, which would violate the whole "effectively individual matches" idea. If you did actually individual matches (one robot on the field at a time) then it would work (with fewer qualification rounds, I'd hope!) and you could add some sort of team challenge for elims with two or three on an alliance. However, that's not what FIRST ordered with the fields. I like the concept, though.

[Pault]

Havent put too much thought into this, but just want to throw it out there for bragging rights on the off-chance I am right.

This year we will se a complete reworking of the penalty system and how rules are written. That is why Frank is recycling the game manual.

[MaadHatter]

Havent put too much thought into this, but just want to throw it out there for bragging rights on the off-chance I am right.

This year we will se a complete reworking of the penalty system and how rules are written. That is why Frank is recycling the game manual.

I wouldn't be surprised if this happened actually, with the huge increase in penalties last year

[Duffy509]

Lavery had a picture of Plowie with the circle and cross through it, so I wouldn't be surprised to see a different animation. That will make me sad though.

Maybe Dave is trying to give us a hint that Dozer and bots of that type are ineffective in this years game. I would find it odd for FIRST to switch animation styles when the community enjoys them and they are efficient at explaining the game.

[EricH]

Maybe Dave is trying to give us a hint that Dozer and bots of that type are ineffective in this years game. I would find it odd for FIRST to switch animation styles when the community enjoys them and they are efficient at explaining the game.

I would find it EXTREMELY out of FIRST's character for robots of Dozer's class to have no role at all.

Dozer is generally regarded as the BLT/BoxBot class of robots. These are your very low-resource* teams who have a tough time building a basic robot--FIRST always attempts to have something that they can do to be a positive contribution to an alliance. Always.

If that has changed, then there is probably going to be a sudden shrinkage in FRC next year...



*I'm counting organization as a resource, along with funding and mentorship and parts.

[Oblarg]

Maybe Dave is trying to give us a hint that Dozer and bots of that type are ineffective in this years game. I would find it odd for FIRST to switch animation styles when the community enjoys them and they are efficient at explaining the game.

If this is the case, I sure hope there's some other easy task for rookie teams to handle. I think it's actually rather important that there be some tasks that a box-on-wheel can do to contribute in some way to an alliance.

[IronicDeadBird]

Maybe they are just changing the format of the manual. Font, size, spacing, but they want to recycle cause you know environment or whatever...
Although a big change from last years game they could throw out there is heavy-only safety zones, it'd be a shame though if that happened.
Although for this not to be a joke the change that does come needs to be at least comparable to what the videos show, otherwise its kinda tame.

[Canon reeves]

Also, I doubt it'll be a projectile game, they wouldn't say change is coming and then give us the fourth projectile/shooting game in a row. Probably better for newer teams so that they're not going up against teams that have been working on some sort of shooting mechanism for the past 3 years.

I think the GDC has shifted towards spectator/sport orientated games that aren't hard to understand. In games like logomotion, it wouldn't really be as interesting to someone who doesn't understand the scoring system, where as in Ultimate Ascent, its easy to tell. The more frisbees you shoot in the goal the more points, and the higher you climb on the pyramid the more points. I think they want to capture the kind of hype that sports get, and the edge of the seat matches that are the result of real time scoring and well matched alliances.

[Mark Holschuh]

Just FYI as this discussion continues, his name is officially Dozer. :)

Just out of curiosity, do any of the other robot characters from the game animations have names?

[EricH]

Just out of curiosity, do any of the other robot characters from the game animations have names?

Not that I know about. That being said, those are all significantly different from year to year; Dozer mainly gets bumpers and "finish" items (for example, an engine and spoiler in '08), or a change in the number of wheels if he's lucky, between years.

[SpaceBiz]

I can say that there is almost no chance dozer like robots will not be able to contribute next year. Growth and including rookie teams is something first always puts as one of their first priorities.

I can also say there is a very strong chance that first will either minimize arbitrary penalties, or at least make large changes to the rule book.

[alicen]

People are probably reading way too far into the Dozer image (which hasn't been linked to this thread??). It's probably something in the animation that tells about a penalty in game.

I would go through all the things that I definitely don't think will change and why, but it's already been done several times.

[*Rachelle*]

Maybe they are just changing the format of the manual.

This would be a real tease to the FIRST community, but truthfully, it is possible. They very well could change how the manual itself is organized- this would explain why the manual was thrown in the recycle bin. However, it does not explain the rest of the video and why they only chose to highlight some of the big changes instead of all/most of them. So, while this may be a change, I doubt it will be the biggest change.

[MaadHatter]

I think the GDC has shifted towards spectator/sport orientated games that aren't hard to understand. In games like logomotion, it wouldn't really be as interesting to someone who doesn't understand the scoring system, where as in Ultimate Ascent, its easy to tell. The more frisbees you shoot in the goal the more points, and the higher you climb on the pyramid the more points. I think they want to capture the kind of hype that sports get, and the edge of the seat matches that are the result of real time scoring and well matched alliances.

This is a really good point, but not all sports require some sort of projectile motion into a goal, although a lot of them do. After all the projectile games, I think FIRST may be trying to find a balance between interesting everyone and having a non-projectile based competition.

[Kevin Sevcik]

I have no where near the time or patience to catch up with this year's runaway speculation train, so I'm just throwing this out without checking to see if anyone else has argued it.

I think the suggestion that they're recycling 2014 is a pretty persuasive one. My intuition on this is mainly driven by the very obvious recycling of the manual, and the combination of the history lesson in game changes and Frank boldly declaring that change is coming.

Think about it. The one absolute constant through the years is that each game is radically different from the previous year's. It's the ONE thing we all take for granted. Even the water game jokes that assume nearly everything about robot design will change are assuming the game is going to be different.

There's really only two ways to take Frank's statement. Option B (for boring) is that the game/robot/field is going to be radically different this year. This is not news. If I time traveled back here from two weeks in the future and declared that the 2015 game was totally new and different, I would be met with a resounding chorus of "and?"

Option M (for meta) is that Frank's statement means a change is coming to the fundamental nature of how things are done in FRC. Which really is news and surprising, as evidenced by the controversy of a recycled game.

Given that the game hints actually do have informational content and option B is completely lacking in information, I'm kind leaning towards option M...

[HelloRobot]

It will be interesting to figure out exactly what the hint means. I think "big changes" (like changing the field design or number of robots on an alliance) would be drastic and unlikely, since I think FRC's format works fine. Still, we're innovators, soooo maybe there's going to be an emphasis on change and improving something.

If not, I have another theory... (for laughs, of course :D ) https://twitter.com/Team5412/status/547804129536782336

[Duffy509]

I would find it EXTREMELY out of FIRST's character for robots of Dozer's class to have no role at all.

Dozer is generally regarded as the BLT/BoxBot class of robots. These are your very low-resource* teams who have a tough time building a basic robot--FIRST always attempts to have something that they can do to be a positive contribution to an alliance. Always.

I think that my earlier text is causing confusion in what I meant in my last post. I don't mean by any means that FIRST might be getting rid of low-resource bots that rookie teams can easily manage. I mean that maybe the game is leaving the ground level. For example (not an actual assumption of what the game might be but it would be something different) if the game was played with game pieces that were suspended above the field on strings. A rookie team could jut as easily build a chassis and simply put long poles on top to push around the pieces.

I agree that an elimination of these kit bots plus one or two parts would severely cut the number of new teams for FIRST and hope that this clears up my earlier statement.

[GeeTwo]

Given that the game hints actually do have informational content
Well, that's really the point, isn't it? Last year's clue basically led to the single word "Assist", which was just part of the name of the game. The "assists" in the game were not quite what any of the three sports call assists, in particular in that:
1) they counted the scoring "athlete" as being an assist
2) two other "athletes" could assist a single score
3) "assists" actually increased the value of the score

What "change" means in terms of game dynamics is obviously a great source of speculation. One of the big things mentioned is that alliance assignments will shift mid-match. I find that intriguing, but dubious. "Change" could be something as simple as last year's "hot goals" or something like a "forced" endgame - where the scoring for the first portion of the game and the second portion of the game are fundamentally different. Heck, it could be about counting the value of a pile of coins. My virtual money is on "change" referring to nothing mentioned in any CD post, including this one.

[gavmac928]

What "change" means in terms of game dynamics is obviously a great source of speculation. One of the big things mentioned is that alliance assignments will shift mid-match. I find that intriguing, but dubious. "Change" could be something as simple as last year's "hot goals" or something like a "forced" endgame - where the scoring for the first portion of the game and the second portion of the game are fundamentally different. Heck, it could be about counting the value of a pile of coins. My virtual money is on "change" referring to nothing mentioned in any CD post, including this one.

I can definitely see what you mean, that the hint could simply be change. "Change is coming" could mean less that there is a fundamental change in the rules, and more that there will be a change in something in every match, or even both. I like the idea some people have proposed that there will be two game pieces. To take it another step, what if there was one game piece at the start of the match, then halfway through, as pieces are scored, instead of those pieces being returned to the field, new, different ones are put on in their place? That would make for both a major fundamental change, and change within each match.

[superlizardmo]

I think something that hasn't gotten a lot of attention in this thread is one possible explanation of the significance of the repeated footage. The year for which the game is not shown is '99 which is also Wayne Gretzky's hockey number. To quote the Wikipedia page on him, "The NHL retired his jersey number 99 league-wide, making him the only player to receive this honour". Does this point to a hockey game? I think it might. This game could be played by allowing teams to interact with, but not possess the pucks making the game a lot more like actual hockey than a shooting game.

[EricH]

I don't mean by any means that FIRST might be getting rid of low-resource bots that rookie teams can easily manage. I mean that maybe the game is leaving the ground level. For example (not an actual assumption of what the game might be but it would be something different) if the game was played with game pieces that were suspended above the field on strings. A rookie team could jut as easily build a chassis and simply put long poles on top to push around the pieces.

Let's see... Rookies could theoretically manage any one of the following:
2010: push a soccer ball into a goal
2011: launch a minibot
2012: balance a bridge
2013: low goal points, at 1 point each, OR FCS blocker
2014: low goal/assist

How many of those require adding something to the chassis?

Let's make it easier. How many do NOT require adding something to the chassis?

*crickets*

Right. A box on wheels, with no further improvements, has typically been extremely non-competitive. Something has to be added--something simple, as simple as a bar between the wheels (2010), or an armchair (2014)--in order to be more than a nuisance to all who partner with or play against you. This means adding something, usually quite simple, and yet many teams are unable--or unwilling--to do that, or lack the means (or desire) to do it effectively.

Most teams go the opposite way, and this is where I think they run into trouble: They aim too high. They'll go high goal only, without considering that a quickly-dropped low goal can be better. That's all fine and dandy, mind you, but often those newer/lower-resource teams just can't figure out that maybe the top area isn't quite in range yet... so they should aim just a smidgen lower, but still strive for more. But those teams that aim too high end up being about as much competitive use as a box on wheels (which, don't get me wrong, can still be pretty effective--but it has to be used right).



On another note...
I think you're on to something with that game idea. There's that 5' long box in the KOP... What if it's some attachment that must be used in some way to manipulate the game pieces?

[Ginger Power]

Whoops looked at the wrong page!

[kcy0511]

I think something that hasn't gotten a lot of attention in this thread is one possible explanation of the significance of the repeated footage. The year for which the game is not shown is '99 which is also Wayne Gretzky's hockey number. To quote the Wikipedia page on him, "The NHL retired his jersey number 99 league-wide, making him the only player to receive this honour". Does this point to a hockey game? I think it might. This game could be played by allowing teams to interact with, but not possess the pucks making the game a lot more like actual hockey than a shooting game.

I like where this is going. It doesn't feel like rampant wild guesses that feel like the are being forced into the hint. Maybe the hint was '99 AND "Change is coming". We should refocus on collecting all the data we can from the hint video then we can analyze that data. You know, the scientific way. Just my 2 cents. (Pun intended)

[x86_4819]

I like where this is going. It doesn't feel like rampant wild guesses that feel like the are being forced into the hint. Maybe the hint was '99 AND "Change is coming". We should refocus on collecting all the data we can from the hint video then we can analyze that data. You know, the scientific way. Just my 2 cents. (Pun intended)

+1

[Oblarg]

I like where this is going. It doesn't feel like rampant wild guesses that feel like the are being forced into the hint. Maybe the hint was '99 AND "Change is coming". We should refocus on collecting all the data we can from the hint video then we can analyze that data. You know, the scientific way. Just my 2 cents. (Pun intended)

Just remember that not all the "data" are useful data. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overfitting)

[orangemoore]

Change is coming.

We should expect that anyways. Right now the possibilities of that change keeps me up at night.

Change is coming.

[Anthony Galea]

I think something that hasn't gotten a lot of attention in this thread is one possible explanation of the significance of the repeated footage. The year for which the game is not shown is '99 which is also Wayne Gretzky's hockey number. To quote the Wikipedia page on him, "The NHL retired his jersey number 99 league-wide, making him the only player to receive this honour". Does this point to a hockey game? I think it might. This game could be played by allowing teams to interact with, but not possess the pucks making the game a lot more like actual hockey than a shooting game.

The other thing to be considered is that in 1999, you had robots fighting for control on... a puck.

[alephzer0]

I think something that hasn't gotten a lot of attention in this thread is one possible explanation of the significance of the repeated footage. The year for which the game is not shown is '99 which is also Wayne Gretzky's hockey number. To quote the Wikipedia page on him, "The NHL retired his jersey number 99 league-wide, making him the only player to receive this honour". Does this point to a hockey game? I think it might. This game could be played by allowing teams to interact with, but not possess the pucks making the game a lot more like actual hockey than a shooting game.
The other thing to be considered is that in 1999, you had robots fighting for control on... a puck.

and that Gretzky retired in 1999...

[Wyatt Jordan]

And remember that the 2014 hint included professional players in the sports of Soccer, Basketball, and Hockey. And the hockey player with the most assists in last year's hint was also Wayne Gretzky!

Last year I totally thought the game would be a hockey game because we already had a basketball and soccer game. Since the GDC has games made several years in advance do you think last year's hint could partially point to this year's game?

Also beware if it is a hockey game they might try to bring back the lunacy surface to simulate ice :yikes:

[mrnoble]

Last year's game took elements of hockey (and soccer, and basketball, and volleyball) and transformed it into something that could be called Robot Ball. It had elements of sport, transformed. With more development and time, it could become a great thing. I don't think the GDC is looking for shadows of human games anymore.

[Paul Richardson]

Also beware if it is a hockey game they might try to bring back the lunacy surface to simulate ice :yikes:

I don't think that a slippery driving surface is necessary. If you look at hockey players they aren't slipping and sliding around, they have pretty good control. In fact, the way they skate is pretty similar to how a typical FRC robot moves on carpet (forward and backward, sweeping turns, and pivots).

[kcy0511]

I also agree that a hockey game does not automatically mean the use of white plastic.
Roller Hockey anyone???:D

[Wyatt Jordan]

Last year's game took elements of hockey (and soccer, and basketball, and volleyball) and transformed it into something that could be called Robot Ball. It had elements of sport, transformed. With more development and time, it could become a great thing. I don't think the GDC is looking for shadows of human games anymore.

where were the elements of hockey? yeah I guess catching something over a raised bar (like the 2014 truss) is like volleyball and there's some soccer since you are shooting into a goal, and maybe basketball with the 1 point goal, but when I think of hockey I think of shooting something into a goal on the ground by sliding a game object across the surface of the field and no FRC game has done that. Breakaway was the closest to that but the bumps in the field made it so that robots were often kicking balls above the field surface, not sliding them across it