Next Years Game?

[Jeremy]

I want to get an early start on this one, what do you think "and be serious" that next years game will consist of? :confused:

[JVN]

Remember:
What you say can and will be used against you by the Game Design Committee in a kickoff of FIRST.
Stack attack anyone? :)

[Zzyzx]

I'm serious abot trying somthing underwater. Why can't we build submersable robots? It would be chalanging, yes, but it is possible.

[ngreen]

I see 24' by 48' carpet...
I see multi-tiered platforms(ramp or steps).....
I see dave giving clues that leave us clueless...
Other things I possibly see....clowns...robots balancing on segways....KK floppies...field barriers....and pvc...

[Jessica Boucher]

I feel like a lot of that has been covered here...

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27863

[mtaman02]

A water Competition would be good but.... not to put all the teams down but some teams have a hard time building a robust robot. To build one thats 100% waterproof will be trying and hard espicially with the currently set 130lbs. w/ battery.

Another issue that may arise is this robots would be small ones. for the simple fact that you cannot lift a 130lb robot out of the water w/o a crane. The playing field would not be very big either.

I too would like to see a water competition but it would be too hard of game. Many things would have to be changed and the problem would be how interesting could it get.

If anything I would like to see Multipliers and many scoring options available with the "Winner Gets the Loser Score for QP's" And the 0 - 1 - 2 Method for Ranking.

Same Field, maybe with hanging objects in which robots have to retrieve and place in their Respective alliance zones. Maybe put the E-Stop Buttons to use again and end the match at your own free willing. Almost like in 2001 where where if you ended the match after a certain time you get an X amount of points. This type of game wouldn't be very spectator friendly but nevertheless has some ideas that could be usable.

[Ryan Albright]

The cost to make a submersable robot would be to great. Every team does not have the funding to build a totally waterproof robot, if FIRST ever went in that direction i could def forsee Kit Cost higher. They would have to supply us with stuff to build a waterproof robot.

I think its safe to say in the near future we will not see a water game.

[TD78]

The cost to make a submersable robot would be to great. Every team does not have the funding to build a totally waterproof robot, if FIRST ever went in that direction i could def forsee Kit Cost higher. They would have to supply us with stuff to build a waterproof robot.

I think its safe to say in the near future we will not see a water game.


And besides that, can you imagine how much the field would cost!?! That alone would discourage such a game.

Now I've only been in FIRST for three years now and so far 2002 and 2004 have been my favorite years. Stack Attack was interesting but in the end it seemed to be too concerned with seeing who could hit stuff the hardest. Balls are fun beause they are so versatile; nearly any sort of game can be designed around them. In that sense I'm kinda partial to balls. But what I would like to see are some serious steps and perhaps autonomous at the end of the game instead of the beginning.

-TD

[MrToast]

But what I would like to see are some serious steps and perhaps autonomous at the end of the game instead of the beginning.
-TD

Ooooohhh, that would be interesting! Teams would have to spend time driving their robots into a certain position for the autonomous. There would also be considerable time spent trying to put obstacles in the way of other robots to impede their autonomous code.

What about each robot having a certain transmitter on it (supplied in The Kit), and the entire game must be autonomous? The humans would be involved with placing objects at the edge of the field, maybe with RFID tags or something, for their robots to go pick up and do something with.

That would be a true demonstration of engineering/programming!

[mtaman02]

But what I would like to see are some serious steps and perhaps autonomous at the end of the game instead of the beginning.

-TD
I have to agree. This would make the game much more interesting then having it in the start of the match.

[ah27]

This may sound weird (and probably won't work for some reason or another, but hey), but i think someone mentioned that they wanted to see the "carpet" changed... well how about a sand box?

[Tom Bottiglieri]

I am a strong proponent of having autonomous mode at the end of the match. And not just an auto mode where the drivers line up the bot. This would be something where the bot would know exactly what it needs to do and do it, no humans involved.

[Jeff Waegelin]

I'm serious abot trying somthing underwater. Why can't we build submersable robots? It would be chalanging, yes, but it is possible.

Ahh, the yearly tradition. Someone had to bring up the water game idea.... it comes up every off-season.

[JakeGallagher]

It'll sound really weird at first, but...I would love to see something based on keeping the drivers totally segregated from the field. I mean have like a blinder set up where the plexiglas usually is, and having cameras mounted on the robots. In the real world, aren't most controls for robots first person? Think about deep sea exploration robots and robots used to conduct rescues and research in caves where people usually can't go. Wouldn't that be cool?

[Alan Anderson]

I'm finding myself intrigued by a combination of end-of-match autonomous and either a "musical chairs" or "baseball bat" finish.

When I say "baseball bat", I'm thinking about something like having the robots latch a ring around a common goal bar, and the robot which ends up with its ring closest to the end of the bar gets the most points.

[AJunx]

Regarding autonomous mode at the end of the match:

I think everyone needs to keep in mind that FIRST is about inspiring young people to become involved with science and engineering. Surely some teams, those with great resources and highly skilled programmers, would be able to create robots designed to succesfully maneuver in an autonomous mode held at the end of the match. However, you must try to imagine how hard this would be for rookie teams.
As it was this year, I saw plenty of teams at the richmond regional and nationals that for one reason or another did not take part in the autonomous portion of the match. (I could be wrong, but I think 2 of the teams in the national finals did not move during the autonomous period) Undoubtedly, some of these teams were unable to succesfully program their robots to work during autonomous mode. I would have to guess that the percentage of rookie teams nationwide that were unable to make good use of the autonomous period was also fairly high compared with established teams.
Now imagine that the autonomous period is moved to the end of the match. Teams that were unable to make a succesful autonomous mode for their robot at the beginning of the match would now be utterly (to put it bluntly) screwed. Also, how boring would matches be if during the last 30 seconds, only one or two of the robots was still doing something productive? (It would be like when a couple of robots get tipped over midway through the match and can't recover.)
We put up with some robots not doing something at the beginning of the match because autonomous mode provides an extra facet to the engineering challenge of the competition. At the same time, this extra facet is not so extreme as to discourage rookie teams from competing. In my humble opinion, to place the autonomous mode at the end of the match would create an obstacle so great that many prospective teams would choose not to take part in the competition. Moving the autonomous period to the end of the match would therefore go against FIRST's goal of expanding interest in science and engineering to more young people across the country. For this reason I am firmly against moving the autonomous period to the end of the match.

-Andrew

[Koko Ed]

I would prefer a relay race using two allainces of four robots racing through some sort of obsatcles course carrying a bin or a bowling pin with autonomous mode exchanges. Your seeding is based soley on time(if your alliance loses you get an additonal 15 seconds added to your time).

[Lil' Lavery]

I dont its going to be a water competition, yet...
But a competition were wheeled robots become a disadvantage or unusable might occur sometime soon(a step pyrimids, potholes, "rocks"...). I would like to see a game similar to a giant air-hockey table, that'd be fun. Not sure what human players would do yet, but still. the field could be made entirely from slippery materials, or mainly from it anyway. The puck could be designed to slide on the surface or on casters. A game like this would require power for shoving matches, speed to avoid them, manueverability for the same reason, and a device to give you control of the puck(would you be allowed to pick it up?). Also, the infra-red could be used to have a robot get a point to aim at when shooting the puck from a distance, so you could have an aimer in effect. The devise you use to shoot would also propose another build chalenge. We have to keep in mind that first is all about creating challenges that make every robot unique, and thats the one problem with my idea, so far. A lot of the robots would be similar. Possibly multiple pucks capable of being stacked on one another to create a multiplier for scoring them? And that creates more scoring chances.

[Xufer]

I would really like to see a rough terrrain field or items that are challenging to pick up theese balls are just to easy and the crates from last year were demolished within 2 matches. It would also be nice to go back to a game where the robot could score balls so the whole match isnt dependant on your human player.

[Alex Pelan]

I think it will somehow involve moving targets and 4 infrared beacons. The robots could use these to triangulate to tell their position, etc. I don't think that the whole match will be autonomous, as that would be too large of a challenge for rookie teams.

[byrne159]

All I can say is that autonomous will most likely get longer or somehow harder next year.

[Zzyzx]

It'll sound really weird at first, but...I would love to see something based on keeping the drivers totally segregated from the field. I mean have like a blinder set up where the plexiglas usually is, and having cameras mounted on the robots. In the real world, aren't most controls for robots first person? Think about deep sea exploration robots and robots used to conduct rescues and research in caves where people usually can't go. Wouldn't that be cool?

It would be, and it may be that after a robot performs a certain task, the blinder goes up (or down) in front of their opponent for fifteen seconds. Or if a team volentarily uses a blinder, their score is tripled. I am a fan of having an early termination option for an incresed amount of points, or a multiplied amount of points. Or maybe a game with all robots on a single team, that would be interesting. I'm sure that they could throw some water in that game somewhere.

[Billfred]

Now I've got an idea for next year's field...

Food service-grade cooking lard.

I mean, it cuts traction (better driving required), slicks up the drivetrain (fewer breakdowns), and is available in every high school cafeteria!

More realistically, I'd love to see something like a linoleum field. Something with less traction. (FIRST drifting, anyone?) And on the subject of no-direct-view driving, how about having the HPs navigate for the drivers? Now THAT would take some teamwork!

[Zzyzx]

Low traction eh? How about some water?

[Anthony]

My views on next years game:

Autonomous: if anyone expects this to go away, quit kidding yourself. It is here to stay. As far as the rookie teams having problems with it, yes there were plenty of rookie teams with no autonomous at all. However, there were a significant number of well done rookie autonomous modes as well. For that matter, there were even veterans who did not have autonomous. I expect autonomous to be very important next year as it was this year, but I do not expect it to be anywhere but at the beginning of the match. Furthermore, unless the rounds get longer which I do not expect, autonomous will stay at 15 seconds to still leave plenty of time for "human interfacing" to occur. In this 15 seconds though I would expect the robots to be able to do something that greatly increases their score or gives potential to greatly increase their score. For example, this year you could dump the balls. Next year expect your multiplier to only be available in autonomous. Furthermore, I wouldn't expect it, but 15 seconds at the beginning and then another 10 seconds at the end would be nice. Think of how many teams would have hung or capped this year if their robot could have had 5 more secondsby itself at the end.

Field: The field for the most part isn't going to make major changes like going to water or sand or Mars for that matter. However, I would expect a more advanced stair system. Perhaps instead of a ramp like in stack attack, there will be a system of stairs (atleast 6" each and atleast 4) in the middle which will offer some major end of game points for being on. (maybe 6" high steps with only 12" platforms). And maybe another limbo bar on the sides to force people to climb stairs or be small or something. As far as IR beacons, I don't expect them back in a big way. Many teams with awesome programmers couldn't get them to work or recognize the beacon or half a dozen other problems.

Scoring item/method: If it hasn't already been done, donut shaped things that get put on a pole. Although footballs would also be so cool. Imagine designing a mechanism to handle such an odd shaped ball. For scoring, they human player would throw the ball from the corner of the field to some form of barrel or other structure. I would expect the robot to be able to score again next year. Maybe only in autonomous though (and the ending function will of course still be in existence).

That is my prediction. A large square field, stairs in the middle as a ramp or something with limbo bars on the side. Either 4 poles in the corners or 2 goals similar in shape to this years but more rigid. 15 seconds of initial autonomous and another maddening off season wondering what the game will be ;)

Mad props to the guy who came up with the idea of making the robot first person. If that did not cost so much (for all of the cameras and monitors, etc. that would be the coolest thing ever).

[Mike Ciance]

I'm serious abot trying somthing underwater. Why can't we build submersable robots? It would be chalanging, yes, but it is possible.

i brought up a similar idea, but Mr. Cokeley had a logical reason why that would be bad: some schools have second floor gyms, and having a post-season comp there might cause the floor to cave in. also, water might splash on the scoring computers, controls systems, and so on. it would be way too much work. while it would be cool, it would have to be another competition entirely and done in swimming pools or something

[Mike Ciance]

i have already made up a game for next year, it's pretty crazy

first of all, the scoring objects are cylinders

second, the cylinder score is squared, so 1 cylinder gets 1 point, 2 get 4 points, 9 get 81 points, etc. this makes the game really hectic.

as if this wasnt crazy enough, autonomous would be in the middle of the round (with a killswitch of course). players who use the killswitch would have to wait an additional 15 seconds to resume driver play.

i am working on this game and am going to submit it when they ask for ideas. suggestions or comments anyone?

[dlavery]

The cost to make a submersable robot would be to great. Every team does not have the funding to build a totally waterproof robot, if FIRST ever went in that direction i could def forsee Kit Cost higher. They would have to supply us with stuff to build a waterproof robot.

All reasonable assumptions. As has been raised so very many times in the past, there is a very long list of reasons why an underwater robotics competition would not be practical. The logistics and potential facility damage associated with constructing a pool large enough to hold the robots would be overwhelming. For that reason, even I do not think that it is likely.

Of course, we never said ANYTHING about the operating environment for the drivers...

-dave

[Billfred]

I dont its going to be a water competition, yet...
But a competition were wheeled robots become a disadvantage or unusable might occur sometime soon(a step pyrimids, potholes, "rocks"...). I would like to see a game similar to a giant air-hockey table, that'd be fun. Not sure what human players would do yet, but still. the field could be made entirely from slippery materials, or mainly from it anyway. The puck could be designed to slide on the surface or on casters. A game like this would require power for shoving matches, speed to avoid them, manueverability for the same reason, and a device to give you control of the puck(would you be allowed to pick it up?). Also, the infra-red could be used to have a robot get a point to aim at when shooting the puck from a distance, so you could have an aimer in effect. The devise you use to shoot would also propose another build chalenge. We have to keep in mind that first is all about creating challenges that make every robot unique, and thats the one problem with my idea, so far. A lot of the robots would be similar. Possibly multiple pucks capable of being stacked on one another to create a multiplier for scoring them? And that creates more scoring chances.
Regarding this comment--wheels are like black. They're always in fashion...ibot, anyone?

And I wouldn't mind playing Anthony's game...especially with footballs. While it might give a slight advantage to teams with football teams at their schools, all you'd have to do is make it an unconventional method of scoring. (A FIRST Frenzy-style goal would be a mess of fun...although I guess you'd need to add more pipes to hold them in.)

I still don't see an end-of-match autonomous happening. I like the theory of mid-match autonomous, but it just doesn't seem safe unless your first half of driving involves getting your robot right in position. Not good viewing.

I guess I might as well take my swing at it, given the limits of FIRST and the madness of my head...

BILLFRED'S 2005 GAME

Autonomous: Same as this year as to length and position, although I foresee something to do with AT LEAST a ramp, maybe stairs. And I know that's doable--at least one or two teams in Archimedes did it this year. No clue as to what it'd do--perhaps a ball dump, perhaps not.

Field: One red and one blue team per side, with a fence midway. Mandingo-sized steps are in the middle, a la Anthony's idea. The field's got a red side and a blue side, a la Stack Attack. (Note that one opposing robot starts in this zone, but could go over to the other side by stairs or limbo--strategy becomes big here.)

On the field (or dumped onto it, your choice) are three kinds of balls--8.5" playground balls (you know, the kind you can actually FIND locally), tennis balls (if nothing else, because they force you to ride lower to avoid riding over them), and one 2X-sized ball.

Game: Basically, you're trying to get the balls off of your side of the field. It can either be done by pushing the balls over to the other side, a 33-style exhaling, or by simply scooping the suckers into a bin on your robot. (Lots of archetypes, just like this year. Keeps things interesting.) Score things up somehow (including parking your robot on the steps), probably with the low score winning. For a really devilish trick, paint a lower step that team's color, and have that count as well (or even for more).

I think it'd be a high-action, high-strategy game, especially with robots starting catty-corner from each other. Then you've got to get to your side to send balls over, or somehow suck them back over if you're in enemy territory, or just start sending them over if you're on your own side.

The only feasibility problem is in field reset, given the number of small objects. My remedy is to have two sets of balls, which can be sorted and counted out while the match is played with the other set. Just put each in bins that can be easily emptied. (If they can make a ball dump like this year's, they can figure this one out.)

Thoughts?

[Steve Howland]

Good ideas, but we need to include both human players and a real reason for the autonomous mode. Maybe robots could be disabled for 15 seconds or so MIDWAY through the match and humans could try and clean up the mess on their side. No robot would start until humans got back to their spots, similar to stack attack. Penalties would be given to late arrivals.

As for autonomous they could do a similar thing to this year where if you complete a task, you have an advantage. Maybe the course would be windy from one side to the other on top of the stairs and if your robot got through in time, then your opponent's drop would be DELAYED (less time to get rid of the balls).

Another part could be added for the end of the game, as they have been doing for a few years. Perhaps if the robot was back in its starting position (which could be on a ramp or something), they would receive some extra points (or points added to opponent's score, depending on if you want a high or low score to win).

-Diobsidian

[BoyWithCape195]

Well my first comment is how about a differnt starting posistion. Not RIGHT in front on the drivers but maybe up on a ramp? And if the same old boring starting possitions stay, maybe one side consists of a red and a blue, two opponents on the same side and visa versa for the other side.

Now that I got that out, how about a task that a robot can do, to give their team an advantage, for example: A button that if pressed (one time per match) the opposite team gets a blind sheild for 15 seconds. Maybe there could be mutiple tasks and your alliance can only pick one to use against the opponet, if they can reach it (maybe very hard to get?) I think that that would be a GREAT idea. It would involve alot of challange, a big race to do what ever the task is, and ALOT of strategy. (maybe have to do it in auto or else it doesnt do anything like this years.) Well those are my ideas...what do you think?

[Marc P.]

Though I wasn't around in '99, I like the idea of a mobile "puck" robots can climb on to, but moves around the field. Something like the mobile goals from this year (with only 3 casters), but take off the PVC pipes, and you have a good time watching robots try to climb on to something that can move. However, to score points, the mobile goal, and riding robot, would have to be in a scoring zone in the center of the field, away from walls and any objects that can brace the goal for a steady mounting. This way, unless a robot can climb on without moving the goal, an alliance robot would have to tow the goal into scoring position, as well as push opposing robots out of scoring position.

I'll try to come up with a complete game tomorrow, but I think that would be pretty cool.

[Ryan Albright]

The thing i want to see the most changed is the playing surface, carpet is getting boring give us something new. We have learned over the years what is good on carpet for traction,torque, and speed and most teams dont change that year to year and giving us a new surface next year would throw a curveball to every team

[Brandon Holley]

An awesome game idea to me, would be one that involved a pit of balls. Something you would see in a mcdonalds area. Imagine building a bot that had to do stuff like that. Forget a pushing match, your robot may hardly be able to move. Just have a 5 x 10 pit in the middle of the field. In the middle fo the pit have a solid platform. Whichever team was on top at the end wins or something like that would be cool, at least i think it would. Also I think that reaching something VERY high would be cool. Imagine a robot extending 20-30 feet in the air to grab a ring hanging from the ceiling.

[Brandon Holley]

Regarding autonomous mode at the end of the match:

I think everyone needs to keep in mind that FIRST is about inspiring young people to become involved with science and engineering. Surely some teams, those with great resources and highly skilled programmers, would be able to create robots designed to succesfully maneuver in an autonomous mode held at the end of the match. However, you must try to imagine how hard this would be for rookie teams.
As it was this year, I saw plenty of teams at the richmond regional and nationals that for one reason or another did not take part in the autonomous portion of the match. (I could be wrong, but I think 2 of the teams in the national finals did not move during the autonomous period) Undoubtedly, some of these teams were unable to succesfully program their robots to work during autonomous mode. I would have to guess that the percentage of rookie teams nationwide that were unable to make good use of the autonomous period was also fairly high compared with established teams.
Now imagine that the autonomous period is moved to the end of the match. Teams that were unable to make a succesful autonomous mode for their robot at the beginning of the match would now be utterly (to put it bluntly) screwed. Also, how boring would matches be if during the last 30 seconds, only one or two of the robots was still doing something productive? (It would be like when a couple of robots get tipped over midway through the match and can't recover.)
We put up with some robots not doing something at the beginning of the match because autonomous mode provides an extra facet to the engineering challenge of the competition. At the same time, this extra facet is not so extreme as to discourage rookie teams from competing. In my humble opinion, to place the autonomous mode at the end of the match would create an obstacle so great that many prospective teams would choose not to take part in the competition. Moving the autonomous period to the end of the match would therefore go against FIRST's goal of expanding interest in science and engineering to more young people across the country. For this reason I am firmly against moving the autonomous period to the end of the match.

-Andrew



I completely understand where you're coming from, but i disagree. I feel this could be even easier than in the beginning. Imagine if it was at the end of this years competition. Instead of starting all the way back in front of the players station, a robot could just climb towards the end of the match, and the autonomous would just be to extend a hook and hang. By being able to maneuver ur robot to a better position to do an autonomous would be easier for most if not all teams. Granted auto at the end wouldnt work with this years game, but at the end would be easier.

[Jay W.]

ahh..FIRST Withdrawel sucks...but I'm looking forward to what on earth FIRST will pull out of their heads next year. I hope they don't go with boxes again...didn't really work that well. But the games I've seen with balls have always been exciting and challenging. It might be neat to have something besides carpet, but they need to stick with something that would be easy for teams to purchase. Autonomous has to stay, it puts a twist on every match...

[Ryan M.]

Ooooohhh, that would be interesting! Teams would have to spend time driving their robots into a certain position for the autonomous.Or your robot would have to track it's position and then plot it's own courses to get where it wants to go. Autonomous at the end would be fun. :)

[Mike Ciance]

I hope they don't go with boxes again...didn't really work that well. But the games I've seen with balls have always been exciting and challenging.

i think stack attack was the best game ever in FIRST, i loved that game! :D the boxes made great scoring objects, and the robot placement bonus was the best setup i've seen, way more exciting than hanging on a bar

[Paradox1350]

Autonomous will be harder next year. Longer? Hopefully not (Unless they make hte matches longer.) I say this because all of the excitement is in the humans driving.

So autonomous will be harder. What will it entail? I believe something LIKE infared, but it would have ot be revamped. Why? Because a lot of teams had trouble even with good programming. There was too much interference.

A water match WOULD be fun. But just a minor leak and BAM you could fry your bot's brain (Unless the water were distilled. However stuff comes in on the bots themselves and after even one match, the water would be contaminated.)

I would guess that eventually teams would have to use gyro sensors, like those in a Segway. How soon? No idea. But I can deffinitely see a game in the future that relies on balencing, and having those sensors being super helpful.

Aside from that, I cna't guess exactly what we'll be doing. There are simply too many directions you can go with something like this.

[MASherry]

I definetly agree, Stack Attack was quite a good game. I was looking at some teams website the other day and they were showing past years games and I think maybe they should go back to the hexagonal field or something other than a rectangle maybe a octagonish shape with 4 teams on eac alliance.

[hansTP2S]

I am fully against autonomous at the end. Part of the game is the suspense at the very end, hoping that your team can hang/cap or that one of the other teams will lose their "grip" on the bar. That suspense is totally ruined if you know exactly what will happen during the last 15 seconds (scouterz represent!). It makes it so much better to have a last 15 seconds that is totally dependent on the situation. Additionally your autonomous could be totally ruined by field problems (a movable goal or robot in your way); i realize this could happen with autonomous in the beginning because of collisions in autonomous. Also (this may be a good or bad thing) since usually after the 1st or 2nd match you know what the robot's autonomous is, a team could totallly mess up another teams autonomous with the slightest effort.

bottom line is that autonomous at the end would just not work and it would partiually ruin the game.

[Team311]

how 'bout Zone Zeal 2. Where the setup is pretty much the same but with 13 inch balls instead of soccer balls. And the only way to get the balls is to realease a giant ball from a platform. and if that is not done the balls do not fall on to the feild. the balls can also be colored so only the balls that are the color of your alliance count in that color goal.

[Ryan F.]

how 'bout Zone Zeal 2. Where the setup is pretty much the same but with 13 inch balls instead of soccer balls. And the only way to get the balls is to realease a giant ball from a platform. and if that is not done the balls do not fall on to the feild. the balls can also be colored so only the balls that are the color of your alliance count in that color goal.

That sounds pretty simular to this years game without the bar.

I think that the playing field will stay with carpet. The problems associated with making fields of other matierals are too great. Water-won't happen because of the millions of reasons already stated. Sand....would be cool, but imagine the problems the average team would have with making this field. A ball pit?.....another interesting idea...but I don't think anyone could even move in it!

[Marc P.]

How about a game where instead of having one color balls score into a teams specific goal, switch it around, so you have red and blue balls, scoring in a common goal. All the balls will be mixed up around the field, so it would present more of a challenge to the drivers to pick out which balls you would want to score. If the balls are red and blue, the optical sensors we currently have would be able to differentiate them.

As for autonomous at the end of the match, I think too many teams relied on dead reckoning this year. If autonomous were at the end of the match, this would not work so well. Until the majority of teams can effectively make use of the IR, or other method of tracking position, I think autonomous would have to remain at the beginning of the match.

[tkwetzel]

How about a game where instead of having one color balls score into a teams specific goal, switch it around, so you have red and blue balls, scoring in a common goal. All the balls will be mixed up around the field, so it would present more of a challenge to the drivers to pick out which balls you would want to score. If the balls are red and blue, the optical sensors we currently have would be able to differentiate them.

Or how about different color balls and goals. Make the balls worth 5 or 10 points depending on what goal they are in. If you have a red ball in a red goal it is worth 5 points, but if a red ball is in a blue goal it is worth 10 points. And you could allow teams to goaltend their own goals to prevent the other alliance from getting double the points in their goal. It would present a lot more interesting strategies and more options for teams.

[DrWorm]

Somebody that had gone to the pneumatics confrence thing in atlanta had told me there was this sucking thing (that could be used for this years 2x balls) that they would include in the kit next year. Its a small clue, so it may involve balls or somthing.

[Billfred]

I like this idea...maybe it's just me, but having robots stay on one side of the field gets boring real quick. The more robots that are mixing-it-up (in the FIRST mentality of the phrase) on the field, the better. And going to get the other alliance's balls to get more points is an easy way to facilitate that. And you'd know whether or not your side's ball dump had enough balls. Archimedes had fun with that this year.

[mtaman02]

I completely understand where you're coming from, but i disagree. I feel this could be even easier than in the beginning. Imagine if it was at the end of this years competition. Instead of starting all the way back in front of the players station, a robot could just climb towards the end of the match, and the autonomous would just be to extend a hook and hang. By being able to maneuver ur robot to a better position to do an autonomous would be easier for most if not all teams. Granted auto at the end wouldnt work with this years game, but at the end would be easier.Ok Ok

Better yet

We have seen in the past 2 years now that Autonomous has been used by the best of the best and the rookie teams that you would never expect to see auton mode. We have also seen that this period of time wasted by sitting in the "end zone" in the beginning of the match. So:

I formally edit my idea after reading some posts. Teams should not have to be forced to use auton mode to score. Why not make it optional via the E-Stop. Now a few ideas play out to this

1) A team may choose to use auton mode if they wish for 15s. after the 15s. that team may not use auton mode till there next match. there partner for that match may also use auton but must wait till there inital partner is finished. that way less robot collision. Rule applies to the Opponents as well

so Each team has a chance to use auton once during a match. but they do not have to use it if they don't want to. 25pts. goes to the team who used their auton mode. any points they earned during that period is added to the final score or is scored all togther

2) Alliances may only use there Auton mode only if the E-Stop is depressed. Both stops must be depressed in order for auton mode to work. once again use it or lose it. 15seconds this mode will last for

3) Have no auto mode and give all the teams 1 year of trainging in how to program auto mode using c++ via small work shops

Pressing the E-stop twice will disable the robot (almost like a momentary switch so be-careful)

As for playing surface. FIRST could change the surface but I highly doubt it. Alot of this years and previous years robots have torn the carpet. and thats probably why some wanna see it change but to change it so that teams can build around it will have its ups and downs like expenses on both sides, FIRST for getting the surface, and teams to try and make a drive train for that surface. The carpet which has been a annual tradition will be hear to stay. If it gets torn Duck tape will piece it together.

I still stick with some sort of scoring object being hung from the top of the field. Its point value could be large or small. (large would be nice) that scoring object with such value could be a match decider for either side. Almost like in wrestling. Sombody goes to the top of the ladder for the belt wins the title for him and his partner or just himself. same idea here. A Team who can reach up and get that Large amount of points could either help his score or the alliances score. Almost like in 2001 where if Red cabbed the goal with the Red ball they he would have gotten an excess of X amount of points above the tieing 3 teams. It would be persay "Diabolical"

There is one and only one of these objects so this would call for plenty fighting for it. (ROBUSTNESS is the key)

[EStokely]

I want to defend the idea of end of match auto mode.

Often where a robot is at the end determines part of the score.
On the ramp, hanging, on a puck, whatever.

So the LAST 15 seconds are Auto. No auto code? get to the scoring zone early.Disadvantage to a team that has no auto? Yep. Just like in this years and last years game (Or are we talking about "this years" game since the rookies are no longer rookies) I like the reflective tape with Banner sensors. Easy to see and head towards.

I also like the previous idea of a verticle bar. Highest on the bar gets more points. I see a sneaky auto mode that detects if a robot is above them and then shifts to go higher. All you would need is an arm/hand. I don't see having the whole robot suspended from the bar, just placement on teh bar.

I really liked this years game. It evolved all day long. I hope they can find a similar way to do it next year. But I also liked 4 v 0 so what do I know.

[ahecht]

There are two things I'd really like to see return from previous games:

1) A loose field surface, ala 1992. While corn would probably be too small, something like gravel might work (although they would need to build solid sides to the field to keep the mess down). What about randomly scattered bits of wood and metal? I'm a bit tired of solid, flat surfaces.

2) "Live" scoring, like (I believe) 1995. Most FIRST games were not scored officially until the match is over, because another robot could undo whatever had been done, but almost every other sport has non-reversable ways to score. Awarding 10 points every time you get a ball though a hoop, push an object into a goal, or hit a target would make FIRST more like a sport and less like a giant board game. We could even have a giant robotic pinball!