QUESTION OF THE WEEK!!! [07-08-01]

[Ken Leung]

Hi all, there've been a lot of talks about different things next year's game should have. Some people want to see the game easier to understand, some want more excitements, and some want to see more teams achieving top scores... I believe that FIRST people have the same thoughts in their mind when they think about another game for the coming year. In addition, they also have to consider the impact of the game on the participants, as well as the overall image to the outside world, and many other factors. What ended up happening every year is that the game always has some important lessons behind them... So, with that in mind here is the question of the week¡K

Question 7/8/01: What objects, scoring rules, and strategies would you want to see in next year's game to make the 2002 competition as great as, maybe even better than, any past competitions?

Feel free to stretch your imagination and come up with any kind of game that will fit your criteria of a worthwhile competition. The only rule is that you will have to think of yourself as FIRST/Dean ;), and come up with something realistic. You might come up with something as simple as "the fastest robot wins!" or as complicated as last year's Diabolical Dynamics...

(Keep in mind that objects aren't necessary limited to spheres or air-inflated objects, but it will have to be something teams can obtain easily...)

P.S. I am open to suggestions of any questions you want as the "QUESTION OF THE WEEK!!!"... So e-mail me at ken_leung@hotmail.com and show me what you got... ;)

[Tom Fairchild]

One thing that I thought would be fun to have in a FIRST game would be rope. Either have a rope strung across the field that a robot could use like a zip line of some sort or having robots climb a wall with one. There are tons of different ideas that can be used with that incorporated. Easy to use, easy to get a hold of, easy to set up. It also has a lot of room for clever ideas as to how to manipulate it. As for the actual game, that's up for someone else to come up with. ;)

~Tom~, who just thinks rope would be fun to work with.

P.S. Ken - you seemed so worried about coming up with good questions for Question of the Week yet your first two have been great! Keep it up! :)

[Tom Schindler]

Originally posted by Tom Fairchild
There are tons of different ideas that can be used with that incorporated. Easy to use, easy to get a hold of, easy to set up. It also has a lot of room for clever ideas as to how to manipulate it.
there is also a downside to using rope... remember how the bridges varied this year? well the tensions on the rope could vary... which (depending on the game) could change the outcome of the game. well.. don't mind me, i'm just playing devil's advocate.. i bet they could make it work somehow :)

usage of new game objects (other than balls, floppy's, rings etc) would be nice, how about incorporating the circle triangle and square of the FIRST logo into the game somehow? i know this has been brought up before, but bowling pins anyone?

Hmm.. i would definitely like to see defense as a strategy next year. I was so happy at battlecry when we could get in front of a bridge and just block the other 'bots out.

i don't know how FIRST does it, but they always seem to amaze us with new game strategies and ideas... alliances in 99, the rings in 97 were different.. whatever next years game is, FIRST will find a way to make us all happy.

Tom

[Kris Verdeyen]

Why not have a robotic competition take place outside on a grass or mud or sand field in all weather? Robotica has taught us that we can make cheap robots that are waterproof, and Disney definately has enough space to create a few outdoor fields. It might be trickier for the regionals (especially here in Houston), but it could be done.

Short of that, I like both of the previous ideas (rope and bowling pins) as well as one that was mentioned earlier in the off-season, cinder blocks.

In short, I think that robotics competitions in general, and FIRST in particular, need to start moving away from the precise field designs. Something like the bridge shouldn't have to be machined exactly right. We should encourage robust designs that can handle a range of field conditions.

[EddieMcD]

simple: put those orange cones out on the field. each team has their own shelf. you get one point for a cone just on the shelf, and 3 if it is upside-down (i.e., the base is the thinner part).

not so simple: 1 vs 1 vs 1 vs 1 vs1 teams manipulate pyramids, cubes, & spheres. each team gets a hexagonal puck. you score points for cubes & pyramids in the goal, more for it being in your part of the goal. Pentagonal goal that spins on tracks. points for hanging, being on the hexagonal puck, having the puck in the air, hanging with the puck, & taking the center of the spinning ramp (part of the goal). spheres give a doubler in the central column, and a point in your area of the goal.

Well, if you saw The High Priest's drawings, it is actually much simpler than it sounds.

[Carolyn Duncan]

I'd like to see us play a sport. One that is a popular sport like soccer, football, or something like that. They could split up which schools are in charge of what positions and play agianst each other. This would eliminate having 500 matches at 2 minutes each. For practice we could have a scrimmage or something.
C~ya,
Caroyn with her $0.02

[Justin]

Okay,

Well I'm sure many will view this a pure evil. But I'd like to see something really drastic happen w/the design specs. They've been the same for quite a while now. Let's shave 10lbs off these machines. Or 5" off the box it can fit in. Or let's do something like outlaw wheels. I think that this would combat some of the stagnantness in some Veteran machines. I think we can all think of a team where we look at thier robot year after year and go "Gee that seems familar."

-Justin

[Tom Fairchild]

Well put Justin. I really agree with you there. No question that the game would be difficult if you couldn't use wheels (or treads), but it would definitly make it fun.

~Tom~

[Matt Leese]

The problem with making the game too difficult is that rookies will have an even harder time building a robot now. There's a good number of rookie teams that can barely finish a drive train and if FIRST tries to expect too much more for them they just won't participate. Personally I'm hoping for a return to a simpler game but where there are multiple ways to approach it.

Matt

[Tom Schindler]

Originally posted by Justin
I think we can all think of a team where we look at thier robot year after year and go "Gee that seems familar."

-Justin

I'm confused.... what is wrong with using a similar design year after year if you can make it fit to the game. The bobcats used the extendo arm in 97,98,99 and 2001. We didn't use it in 2000 because it did not fit the kind of game we wanted to play. My point is that if the design works... then what is wrong with it, why shouldn't we use this design if we like it?

Tom Schindler
Team 177

[Tom Fairchild]

I had the honor and privilage of talking with Dean this morning after a breakfast that he gave a speech at in DC. When he was leaving I said, "I'm looking forward to hearing from you in January." He stops, kinda grabs my arm and says, "Hey, this one is so sick, even I'm proud of it." Sounds like we're in for quite a treat if you ask me.

~Tom~, who's really really happy because he talked to Dean today. ;)

[Joel J]

Originally posted by Tom Fairchild
I had the honor and privilage of talking with Dean this morning after a breakfast that he gave a speech at in DC. When he was leaving I said, "I'm looking forward to hearing from you in January." He stops, kinda grabs my arm and says, "Hey, this one is so sick, even I'm proud of it." Sounds like we're in for quite a treat if you ask me.

~Tom~, who's really really happy because he talked to Dean today. ;) If he really said that, I think I know what the game's gonna be...I'll be sending myself snail mail very soon...

[David Kelly]

Originally posted by Tom Fairchild
I had the honor and privilage of talking with Dean this morning after a breakfast that he gave a speech at in DC. When he was leaving I said, "I'm looking forward to hearing from you in January." He stops, kinda grabs my arm and says, "Hey, this one is so sick, even I'm proud of it." Sounds like we're in for quite a treat if you ask me.

~Tom~, who's really really happy because he talked to Dean today. ;)

I talked to Dean before. It was this year at the Nationals when I went up the get the Delphi "Driving Tomorrows Technology" Award. He said, "I like your blue hair" I was very proud. It took 3 competitions to get it right.

[Tom Fairchild]

Originally posted by jOelster
If he really said that, I think I know what the game's gonna be...I'll be sending myself snail mail very soon...

Oh yeah, I guarentee that's what he said. So alright, tell us - what's your guess???

~Tom~, who thinks that Dean might have us drive each others robots next year.

[David Kelly]

Originally posted by Tom Fairchild


Oh yeah, I guarentee that's what he said. So alright, tell us - what's your guess???

~Tom~, who thinks that Dean might have us drive each others robots next year.

I don't even trust some kids on our team to drive our robot. No way could I see someone from another team, that I don't know, drive our robot.

[Tom Fairchild]

I don't trust some of the kids on my team drive the robot either, but that might just be the point (okay, are we ready for this?)....

Look at it this way. Dean wants us to learn all the important concepts of engineering. Last year he taught us teamwork, where we well exceeded everyone's expectations as to how well people can do when they work together to acheive a common goal. Another very important aspect of engineering is user-friendliness (spl?). Would anyone use a microwave if they had to know exactly how it worked to operate it? No way! Or a car, for that matter. While I don't really like other people driving my car, I think that since they have the experience driving others that they would be able to manage mine, even though it does have a different feel.

Because after all, if a product isn't easily used by the public, how much value can it be?

~Tom~, who's all done now. ;)

[Joe Ross]

I would like to see the return to additive scoring like last year, especially if we return to 2v2 when knowing the exact score can be crucial. Its much easier to add than to multiply by 1.5 and then 1.1 ;)

[EddieMcD]

If we did have to drive othere's robots, what forma would the game be?

[Colt007]

Driving each others robots would be too impractical. There would have to be some sort of incentive in the scoring that would award you on how well your robot did, vs. how well the robot you were driving did -- otherwise, there would be no reason to build a quality robot. Besides, I remember Dean saying that he would make the scoring system easier next year. Once you figured out how the scoring for the robot-switching worked, it certainly would not be easy to keep track of, I think that a lot of it would be subjective, which is very difficult to do consistently.
On the other hand, I would not be suprised to see more teamwork in the future. This year's competition has been said to be boring for the observers, but I found this not to be the case. That, however is beside the point. It would not suprise me to see 6 - 8 robots on the field at once, all competing against each other, but also on mini-alliances of 2, 3, or 4 robots competing across alliances. This could be similar to what occured in the very exciting 2000 competition, but on a larger scale. The playing objects would be somthing common, though bowling pins would certainly fall into that category -- I think that a complex manufacturing process for playing field objects (like the floppies) is not reasonable for most teams for practice. In addition, I think that the increased numbers of teams, would mean that the playing fields will be larger -- especially if there are more than 4 robots on a field at a time. I would expect to see an objectve that requires more from a robot than simply picking up an object and raising it over 8 feet in the air, though that does seem to be a common height requirement. Perhaps the surface of the playing field will be inconsistent, or perhaps there will be bars at irregular heights throughout the field that the robot is required to climb upon. I, for one, would also like to see some variance in size requirements. An engineer is supposed to be able to do more with less, but the sizes have been increasing in recent competitions. It would be interesting to see how designs changed if the robot could not exceed 3 feet in height.
My overall expectation for next year, would be a cross between the 1 vs 1 vs 1 from the '98 comp, and the 2 vs 2 from the '00 comp -- probably a 2 vs 2 vs 2, on a larger field that had more difficult obstacles to traverse than the standard carpeted fields have had. I would expect something that a standard 4 wheel drive system would not easily handle without modification, as well as objects on the playing field that were of irregular shape. Combine this with a fairly simplistic goal, such as putting the objects into a bin, and you could have a fairly challenging game.

[Carolyn Duncan]

Well I don't/won't let anyone drive my car but me. Not even a possibility. I don't know if I agree with the really long preceeding post, my ADD kicked in and everything became a jumble. I would like to know what you guys think is in store for us this year.
C~ya,
Carolyn

[EddieMcD]

Originally posted by Colt007
Driving each others robots would be too impractical. There would have to be some sort of incentive in the scoring that would award you on how well your robot did, vs. how well the robot you were driving did -- otherwise, there would be no reason to build a quality robot. Besides, I remember Dean saying that he would make the scoring system easier next year. Once you figured out how the scoring for the robot-switching worked, it certainly would not be easy to keep track of, I think that a lot of it would be subjective, which is very difficult to do consistently.

Doesn't Dean say that every year?

[mike o'leary]

Originally posted by Carolyn Duncan
Well I don't/won't let anyone drive my car but me. Not even a possibility. I don't know if I agree with the really long preceeding post, my ADD kicked in and everything became a jumble. I would like to know what you guys think is in store for us this year.
C~ya,
Carolyn

yay for add

[Kris Verdeyen]

Originally posted by Tom Fairchild


Dean might have us drive each others robots next year.

Well, that would certainly qualify as sick. But - it would encourage better controls design. it would foster interaction between teams (hopefully good interaction, but if someone crashes your robot, I don't think you'd be patting them on the back). It would, at the very least, make things interesting.

[Carolyn Duncan]

Have any of you guys ever thought that Dean uses FIRST to get ideas for his stuff? The thing that made me think this is college profs. Some of them have their students do all kinds of research and call it "gaining experience" then take the info and publish it themselves. Could this be possible?
C~ya
Carolyn who wonders...

[mike o'leary]

you mean, like things we post on these forums give dean ideas about future games? or that he gets ideas for his inventions, like the i-bot and it from first?

[Carolyn Duncan]

That's exactly what I mean. Somewhere along the line something has to come up that bears such a striking resemblance. Afterall, we ship the robots early and they get inspected. What about the judges this past year (the ones that actually talked to people). They were selective about who they spoke with, maybe they were idea searching for Dean. Maybe this is all one big conspiracy...
C~ya,
Carolyn who watches too many Mel Gibson movies.

[EddieMcD]

Sound like a good movie plot if you ask The High Priest.

*picks up cell phone*

Dean, they're on to us!

-Ed "Said too much again" McDonnell

[Carolyn Duncan]

It's not really an original plot, I borrowed the idea. You get what I mean though. Dean waits a few years so no one will notice...
C~ya,
Carolyn

[EddieMcD]

Hmm...

*Begins to type a movie script*

-Ed "Yet another post to increase his post count" McDonnell

[Carolyn Duncan]

That movie's already been made. Get a new idea or you'll be in... the middle of a copyright case.
C~ya,
Carolyn

[EddieMcD]

Hmm... I-Bots floating around space that have to launch a missile down the exaust port of a deadly starbase?

[Carolyn Duncan]

Been done. 4 times is plenty. Try again.
C~ya,
Carolyn

[Madison]

The idea of driving other people's robots is certainly an intriguing one.

Scoring would go to the robot, rather than the teams, I think. In other words, you'd get a high score by designing a machine that was easy to use, rather than by being skilled in it's use.

I think the game would be simpler, generally speaking, but perhaps not.

Ultimately, if another group is going to be operating your machine, it places a lot of emphasis on areas of engineering which are somewhat neglected in FIRST. Control systems, of course, would need to be something that's as well thought out as the robot itself. It needs to be ergonomically friendly and easy to learn.

But, even moreso, the robot mechanisms need to become a lot more streamlined. How many teams out there could pretty honestly say that they're robots could be driven by anyone? I don't think there are too many. Our robot had certain limitations that you wouldn't know about unless you were there when we built it. Should another team exceed those limits, it would've fallen to pieces.

So, I think you can all see where I am going with this. The efficiency and elegance of engineered monsters will really have to stand out. It'll put a whole new twist on the competition.

And think about this; we won't need to set aside any time for practice!!

[Carolyn Duncan]

Originally posted by Michael Krass
How many teams out there could pretty honestly say that they're robots could be driven by anyone? I don't think there are too many.
And think about this; we won't need to set aside any time for practice!!
Team 495 had a robot that anyone could control last year. We didn't have the ability to make it dificult/sophisticated. This idea, while thought provoking, would not eliminate practice. Teams would still need practice to test everything after shipping. It would also be useful for show casing what a robot can do.
C~ya,
Carolyn

[EddieMcD]

I-Bots that each have their own power and use it to fight for the forces of good?

[Carolyn Duncan]

I can think of somathing, well 2 somethings, that go along those lines.
C~ya,
Carolyn

[EddieMcD]

Hmm... Planet of the I-Bots?

[Carolyn Duncan]

Been done too. People in suits which give them excess bodily hair. Give it another go.
C~ya,
Carolyn

[EddieMcD]

Hmm... how about I-Bots that get lost in the forest and have to rely on a children's wagon to get around, and eventually run into dancing monkeys who steal one of the I-Bot's little brother?

[Carolyn Duncan]

If your refering to what I'm thinking, long time been done. There's no place like home?

[David Kelly]

What do I-Bots floating in the air have to do with the question of the week? Some of these posts should be separated.

[Carolyn Duncan]

Yeah, I agree. Check the suggestions part of the forum. There is a discussion about that.