New Ideas for next year's competition

[XCJP]

While I was at the buckeye regional one of our team mentors gave me an excellent idea. He was talking about how there has always been the option of using the same drive system year after year. I mean there has been some slight variation but many teams can just stick to there old design. Our team mentor came up with the idea of using something like a PVC platform that robots would have to maneuver around on to perform the game. The old style of the field has always been the balls or tetras laid out over the field with any other game objectives there to make it interesting. A drastic change seems to be in order to force some teams to come up with new designs.

[Cory]

While I was at the buckeye regional one of our team mentors gave me an excellent idea. He was talking about how there has always been the option of using the same drive system year after year. I mean there has been some slight variation but many teams can just stick to there old design. Our team mentor came up with the idea of using something like a PVC platform that robots would have to maneuver around on to perform the game. The old style of the field has always been the balls or tetras laid out over the field with any other game objectives there to make it interesting. A drastic change seems to be in order to force some teams to come up with new designs.

Why force teams to use new designs though? If they have a drivetrain that works, then they can focus on making an awesome manipulator.

Similarly, this would put rookies at an even bigger disadvantage. While many veteran teams would have the resources to figure out a new drive, or modify their current one, rookies would have no clue whatsoever.


FIRST doesn't need to make rules to create innovation, we do it on our own, regardless of the game.

[Jeremiah Johnson]

As 648's season came to an end after the Midwest Regional. I got to thinking about a new game. A very simple game yet it will leave a lot for the imagination. I'm not going to unveil it yet but expect to see an animation about it somewhere on our website within the next month or so. I am heading up a class using the Robovation kit and I am designing this game for the final "test." Sure it will be simple for elementary students but I will give FIRST permission to add onto it. :D

Budda

[Billfred]

Really, I don't think there's a way (short of the mecanum wheels that are starting to be seen) to reinvent the FIRST drivetrain wheel. The only way to get folks to come up with a radically different drivetrain would be to radically change how they're required to move--monkey bars, anyone?

[Conor Ryan]

i agree, the only real way to force teams, new and old to change is to really give them an obstical, like a net or monkey bars, or like a tire course (great stepper robots out of that) Simply put, The less even the surface the more innovative the drive system.

[Gene F]

How about a game where the robots have to stay attached to one point. To move game elements around the field they would have to pass them to their alliance partners.

[Billfred]

How about a game where the robots have to stay attached to one point. To move game elements around the field they would have to pass them to their alliance partners.
I'm pretty sure BEST did this either last year or some time beforehand. Kinda interesting, and it would be a radical departure.

I just had this one, and I figured I'd give it a shot...suppose in a ball game there were some event that triggered a set of electric leaf blowers on one side of the field. With a light enough ball (or a strong enough blower), you'd create an advantage/disadvantage setup, which would make alliance coordination a bit more important--you'd want to be able to move balls where you want without losing control of the blower.

[Jeremiah Johnson]

i agree, the only real way to force teams, new and old to change is to really give them an obstical, like a net or monkey bars, or like a tire course (great stepper robots out of that) Simply put, The less even the surface the more innovative the drive system.
An uneven surface would take away awesome drive systems like the crab and 6-wheeled power systems, let alone our three-wheeled single steered design. It would be cool to have obstacles but it wouldnt be quite the same. And if you had to climb abstacles... well, you know, just look back to last year. I say... "BRING BACK THE RAMP!" I loved that thing and there were so many different drive systems incorporated by it. Flat surfaces work well, too. I'm just weary about robots tipping over. I've seen enough broken arms this year.

And for the stationary robot. I don't foresee FIRST having a game like that. The drive systems in these machines are just a huge part of the robot and to abandon them would be horrible. Many students and engineers have spent countless days/nights/even years perfecting their drive systems. I know that this year we used last year's drive system with a few minor changes and it runs great.

My $0.02. Thanks for reading. :D

[sirbleedsalot]

I had an idea not for the game, but how to score it. Take those small electronic stickies that are on items in stores that make the beeper go off when you leave the store and attach them to the game piece. Then you could have instant reliable scoring by having the game go to a certain spot on the field and instead of a buzzer going of it could signal a light and a LCD that added up the points.

[sanddrag]

I really thought this was going to be the year for powerful and fast shifting drive systems because it was 6 robots on the same size (and flat) field. Especially with only 1 mechanism needed and a 3 lb higher weight limit. But was I ever wrong.

Anyway, FIRST gives everyone a really good gearbox that works very well. Because of that, I would like to see a game that really requires a drive system that goes above and beyond in order to be competitive. Zone Zeal pretty much had that, but let's have a game with even more emphasis on the drive system.

I know big arms are more fun to watch than pushing matches, but we need a return of the necessity for drive system fabrication/design/innovation/etc.

This year, there were too many teams using the kit gearbox for my liking. I like to see all sorts of different gearboxes.

While box on wheels robots aren't very exciting, neither is a different arm on the same box.

Giving a good gearbox in the kit was the right move but frankly I'm disappointed that 5 and 6 year teams are not striving for better with their drive system.

[Bill Gold]

I really thought this was going to be the year for powerful and fast shifting drive systems because it was 6 robots on the same size (and flat) field. Especially with only 1 mechanism needed and a 3 lb higher weight limit. But was I ever wrong.

Anyway, FIRST gives everyone a really good gearbox that works very well. Because of that, I would like to see a game that really requires a drive system that goes above and beyond in order to be competitive. Zone Zeal pretty much had that, but let's have a game with even more emphasis on the drive system.

I know big arms are more fun to watch than pushing matches, but we need a return of the necessity for drive system fabrication/design/innovation/etc.

This year, there were too many teams using the kit gearbox for my liking. I like to see all sorts of different gearboxes.

While box on wheels robots aren't very exciting, neither is a different arm on the same box.

Giving a good gearbox in the kit was the right move but frankly I'm disappointed that 5 and 6 year teams are not striving for better with their drive system.
Even more emphasis on drivetrains? I respectfully disagree, Sanddrag. I dislike the idea of, and don’t think you could ever come up with, a game that forces every team or most teams to veer away from the Kit Chassis. If you do this, then what’s the incentive to putting all the money and other resources into providing one? It’s much too valuable for many teams to eliminate from the kit, or to make a game where it couldn’t be adapted to the game.

IMHO, games like the 2004 game would have been perfect if the robots had been able to score the dodge balls. I think you need two different scoring objects for teams to focus on and a bonus skill like hanging/balancing/lifting something in a game. It’s exciting to see robots stacking tetras, scoring balls, capping balls, hanging, falling, balancing, etc. That’s what 2004 missed; the mass scoring of dodge balls by robots, and not the arcing jump shots of human players.

Innovation happens each year, whether it’s a new drive system, a new arm, a new conveying system, or whatever. It’s something that occurs on its own because people like me want to try to make something new, and want to improve upon past ideas. Forcing a little innovation is fine, but the idea of making teams develop an entirely new drive system or other mechanism on a whim is overkill.

-Bill

[ChrisH]

Even more emphasis on drivetrains? I respectfully disagree, Sanddrag. I dislike the idea of, and don’t think you could ever come up with, a game that forces every team or most teams to veer away from the Kit Chassis. If you do this, then what’s the incentive to putting all the money and other resources into providing one? It’s much too valuable for many teams to eliminate from the kit, or to make a game where it couldn’t be adapted to the game.

<snip>

Innovation happens each year, whether it’s a new drive system, a new arm, a new conveying system, or whatever. It’s something that occurs on its own because people like me want to try to make something new, and want to improve upon past ideas. Forcing a little innovation is fine, but the idea of making teams develop an entirely new drive system or other mechanism on a whim is overkill.

-Bill

This year was the first year in a while that you actually had to be good at manipulating something to do well. Guess what industrial robots do, the kind corporations pay big bucks for? They manipulate things. They pick up parts and place them. They move welding heads. They lay composite tape. All of these tasks require picking something up and moving it relative to something else.

This year top robots are placing six or more tetras per match, even if defended against. That means going through the cycle of aquiring a tetra, delivering it to the proper goal, placing it on the goal and aquiring a new tetra at approximately 20 second intervals. That leaves about 5 seconds per task. To do this you have to have a really well designed machine. It means balancing your design so that ALL of these tasks are covered, especially manipulating tetras. This is much more difficult and subtle than building a box on wheels that can just shove things around.

This year's challenge is much more like the tasks we expect robots to do in real life than playing "bumper cars" as Sanddrag seems to prefer. I like it that way.

[Not2B]

Give a young or small team a game that requires an amazing drive train, and you will get boxes on wheels.

Give a young or small team a usable, simple drivetrain, and you will get some impressive "others".

In the past, we have blown our whole build trying to get a drive system working. As a result, we just tack on some junk for our "other" devices. This year we used the drive that came with the robot. And WOW!!! did that get the students excitied. All of a sudden they could work on REAL robot parts instead of a fancy RC car. You don't need the fancy machining to make an arm, the way you need it to make a fancy 6 motor 9 speed automatic crab surfing drive train.

That drive system was the single best item that has ever come in the kit of parts for my team. We got so many more people involved. I'd say it at least DOUBBLED our ablity to spread the word of FIRST on our team.

I say go with simple drive, and the teams that CAN do a fancy drive will.

[Joe J.]

He's right you don't need fancy machining to build an arm all you need is a Hacksaw & Drill. :]

[Collmandoman]

When you begin to think abotu designing a game... you just can't.. there are so many considerations... cost.. is it practicle...is it fun.. is it watchable... the list goes on and on and on forrrrever.. I feel sorry for lavery =/

[mathking]

Wasn't going to post here, but what the heck? What about a game which offers alternatives? Maybe a game with a set of bars running accross the field that a robot can grab and move along to accomplish its tasks while still allowing robots to accomplish the same tasks while driving along the ground. Or a platform that can be climbed with tasks to accomplish atop the platform and tasks to be done by robots on the ground?

One thing I am sure of, I and my students will have fun next year. When I think back and compare the "best" and "worst" games I have seen from FIRST I think it is like choosing between BlackBerry and Mint Chocolate Chip ice cream!

[WLitchfield]

I say screw drivetrains, and screw playing fields as well. I think the competition should be underwater where robots manuever to move objects from one underwater cube to the others to score points. No one would really have an advantage b/c both rookie teams and vets are on a whole new plane of thinking and engineering. Besides the depths of our oceans are still considered frontiers along w/ space so we should move to a game that is practical to todays frontiers.348

[the_short1]

i agreee.. it helps us (rookie team) to be able to focus on our telescoping arm) rather then on driving.. we spent a couple days thinking about our drive train and it was rather simple to decide to use omni wheels and 4wheel drive so we would be manuverable yet powerfull..

i also seen WAY too many broken arms . . it was fun to watch yet. .. painfull>? . . . and it would make it way worse and it breaks the teams hearts to see their robot break if the playing field had rough terain.. i say.. keep it flat..

[Billfred]

I've seen some of the flatter games (Zone Zeal, Triple Play) in action, either live or by videotape. I've also seen games with monstrous climbable field features (Stack Attack, FIRST Frenzy: Raising The Bar) the same way.

Put simply, I love games with the big field features. If for nothing else, it makes the field look more interesting. Compare:

FIRST Frenzy (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/pictures.php?s=&action=single&picid=7552&direction=DESC&sort=username&perrow=4&trows=10&quiet=Verbose)

Triple Play (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/pictures.php?s=&action=single&picid=10832&direction=DESC&sort=username&perrow=4&trows=10&quiet=Verbose)

Also, a good use of colors can contribute to a field that draws folks in more. (For reference, both of those pictures were taken in the same venue, the Colonial Center here at USC.) In FIRST Frenzy, we've got colors all over the place--purple balls and yellow 2X balls, of course, but then we have this ginormous red and blue platform usually stuffed with the aforementioned purple and yellow balls, plus a few robots on the bar. Triple Play has the tetras and the goals, with the vision targets at the bottom of the field. (Of course, with the CMUcam in the kit this year, I can see how there's a method to the madness with a simple field.)

That being said, I would be ecstatic to see an interesting center feature again, one that would draw robots that way, instead of away from each other. (Ten-point bonus for all three robots touching the center goal, anyone?)

If/when Dave posts the "you-design-the-2006-game" thread, I'll develop this the whole way.

[dhitchco]

Hi gang,
please bear with my reply, as I work for a military radio company, so this response may have a lop-sided response:

TriplePlay is my first exposure to the games of FIRST, but I have seen videos of prior years too. I really do like the concept of multi-team alliances and think that three is a good number, but not more than that. I believe the "heart" of the game is in the vision, manipulators, and strategy, not in the drive train.

Real-world robots that operate on a level floor and pick/push/grab something are pretty pervasive in the industrial world.

However, in the military environment, the terrain is not likew running a raobot on a level warehouse floor. So, I'd like to see more crawling and climbing robots. Tunnels where the driver can't see the robot (semi-autonomous tasks) would be way kewl! Ramps and climbing like "stack attack" are also great.

I'd like to see the robots go from "A" to "B" and then perform some "task" rather than just moving an object. As an example, the military now uses robots (ground vehicles) to defuse those roadside explosive devices.

Think about a robot that has to go through a tunnel and then stick it's "key" into a special hole to turn on a 10-point reward light.

The objectives of the games can be endless; but think about how robots in the real world have advanced so much in the past few years with feelers, vision systems, and better 3-dimensional climbing abilities.

Lastly, human players (as discussed in a different thread) are a MUST-HAVE in these competitions. It adds to the excitement, involvement and human players can truly be "random"; which adds to game complexity. After all, it's not the robot that is getting the penalties this year is it?

[Billfred]

Alright, allow me to toss out a completely unrelated idea for 2006, and how it somewhat parallels the real world.

Suppose, when teams arrive at the Magnolia Regional on Friday, their match listings looked something like this:

MATCH 1 0930
RED: 9999, ????, ????
BLUE: 8888, ????, ????

Each of the remaining matches was done the same way, with each time being listed explicitly N times. At this point, those teams will be required to approach two other teams to join their alliance for that match, with some limit on the number of matches a team can play during the regional.

I relate it to the real world like this: Teams 9999 and 8888 are trying to make a product (more points than the other alliance). In order to meet that objective, they're going to have to recruit some outside suppliers (two more teams per alliance) to get their goods (additional point-scoring ability) in order to ensure success.

Now, there would be weaknesses to this--for starters, it adds another layer of madness to an already mad regional. And you'd have to get all these newly-formed alliances into the software pretty quickly (I suppose you'd have a person at the pit admin table entering this information from a team representative--I'd say the person with the mentor badge, but that's me.)

Then there's the issue of three teams always picking each other. You could always put the standard argument of "FIRST isn't fair" here, but it would still get mildly boring after a while. At this point, you'd limit teams acting as the picker (the team listed on the printout) to picking the same team no more than, say, twice at a regional. (The number can change, depending on size.)

Finally, the issue of the team that doesn't pick in time. This one I haven't figured out yet. If you were to force them to go out with one or two robots, you would all but ensure their alliance's failure, but then one or two teams couldn't play a match (as nobody filled those slots, and the capacity shrunk accordingly). I suppose it would involve a forced drafting of teams that still had open slots left. Undesirable, definitely, but the only way around it.

The "dance card" setup is a little crazy*, but it would add another layer of strategy to competitions, IMHO. Thoughts?

*Then again, some folks might argue that building a robot in six weeks is a little crazy. :p

[Scott Chambliss]

Going back to some of the earlier ideas about difficulty and rookie vs. veteran, I think that the competitions should have opportunities and challenges for all levels of experience. The ideal game (hypothetically speaking) would have a field that a rookie team with a provided drive train could move around on and score a respectable amount of points, as long as they put a bunch of effort into their robot. The field would also have a more challenging section/obstacle that could give a lot of points and would be seen as a challenge to the veteran teams. This way, all teams could be challenged, and rookies would have a decent chance of doing well.

Hmmm, its 11:40 and I haven't started my homework :o ...bye!

[SuperJake]

It seems to me that most of the penalties this year could be avoided through game design instead of taking off points. The two biggest hitters for point deductions are because FIRST wants to discourage teams from blocking or descoring opponents and keep human players safe.

The reason teams choose a descoring or blocking strategy is because it is easier to block or descore than it is to score. Solution: Have at least one scoring piece (that is really easy to pick up) get deposited into something like a goal so that it is difficult to get out. Also, make many scoring pieces available as well as several places to score.

The safety penalties were targeted around the HP and Auto loading zones. If you hit a bot while they were in this zone, that bot could potentially fall and hit a person. Solution: elevate the loading zones off the floor using ramps or isolate it from the field using barriers. The plus side to using ramps is if someone tries to block you from getting out of your zone, you can go any direction out of the zone. Also, if the penalties still exist for loading zone infractions, then the opposing team can clearly see from across the field that the robot is in fact in a loading zone (because it is elevated from the field). Or, you could keep the HP away from the robot and load the robot from the HP like in 2000 or 2001... from behind the alliance station.


My idea for a future game:
2 Scoring Objects:
- Balls (A different color for each alliance).
- Something Else (Floppies, tetras, KK donuts, whatever).

2 Types of Scoring Locations:
- Troughs/goals/bins for the balls AND other scoring object.
- Something Else (ONLY for the other scoring object).

Ways to score points:
- Deposit balls into troughs/goals/bins (common scoring container for all alliances, points will be assessed by how many objects of each color are inside the scoring container).
- Deposit other scoring object (other than balls) into troughs/goals/bins (This will be worth more than the balls, but less than scoring this object at the specific scoring location) - EG: If I have a donut and put it in the trough, it is worth 5pts. If I take this donut and stick it in my mouth, I get 20pts because 1) it is hard to get a robot to put a donut in my mouth and 2) it tastes better in my mouth than in the ball trough.)
- Deposit other scoring object into other scoring location (reference example from before).
- Hang, get to a home zone, or do a little dance.

Auton Possibilities:
- knock off a ball (as in 2004) that releases more balls or alternate game pieces.
- Score other scoring object before Auton mode ends.
- Auton segment at the end, robots are able to move from anywhere in the field back to the home zone or some other location to score points. (Eg: you get points for being in your home zone. Time is running out, but you don't want to give up your position, or you want to finish scoring your last point. Time runs out and End Game Auton Begins. If you are a good team, you know exactly where you are and exactly where the end zone is [Possibly with the help of the camera or sensor beacons like in 2004]. Now that you have ~10-15 seconds of auton, you can get back to your home zone. If you are a less advanced team, you hope that you were able to get back before End Game begins, or you are at least pointed the right way so your dead-reckoning robot shoots back home.).

Field Considerations:
- Platforms for auto-loading stations. Here you can get the other scoring objects (not balls, the other thing).
- 1-2 ball troughs. Smaller bots should have the option of going under the troughs. The other scoring locations could be at the ends of the troughs, between the troughs, or some place else entirely.
- mobile goals?
- Alliance-specific other scoring locations?
- A hanging bar? (Everyone seemed to like the hanging games.)


What do you think?

[Nowhere Matt]

On the long trip back from Altanta, someone in my car was talking about the whole 6 robots too much thing, and brought up the crazy idea of having 3 teams of 2, a triangular field, maybe have some sort of goal in the centre and one in each of the corners, and continue the idea of teams having specific items to get

[Winged Wonder]

first of all... keep the human players away from the robots. the penalites really killed a lot of the game this year. i know they were necissary... but this year.. lets just have the robot and the human player stay out of contact.

i've always been fond of ramps... but instead of having a ramp like this: _/\_ why dont you set it up like this: \_/ ....okay i know that looks funny.. but think of it as the robots starting next to the diamond plate on their alliance side of the field, and they must go DOWN into a valley of sorts to do something or other... i dont know... i was just wondering about something different other than a large ramp in the center of the field and rather, 2 smaller ones on each side of the field. you get points for King of the Hill depending on which ramp you're on. lets say you're blue. you get 5 points for being on your home ramp, but if you go over to the red side of the field and get on that ramp/platform, you get 15 points. :) i like the 3 v 3... so make the platforms only big enough for 2 robots each. or maybe you could have on robot on a platform and have an alliance bot work to try to RAISE the platform as much as possible with that robot on there... the higher the platform, the more points. this would force there to be a lot of different kinds of robots.. strong robots, but also very light robots so that the platforms would be easier to lift. i'm not sure how you'd get the platforms to lift though. a pulley system doesnt seem very effective... and i seem to think back to the year where there were teeter-totters (sp?) and you had to balance goals on them...

-shrugs- just my two cents. =)

[SURVIVORfan44]

I liked last year's game so much. I think that last year's game depended on too much of the human player. I think that the game win should be decided on the robot and not the human player. With that being said, I think that next year's game should have 3 giant pillars, and on each of them, having a tetra (from triple play), a doubler ball (From FIRST: Frenzy), and a tupperware container (from Stack Attack). The object would be to place in order how they are with the FIRST logo. The pillars would be funny looking so that each specific one would hold the certain object. Anyway, its a crazy thought...

[Tigerlily-87]

Here's my idea:

The robots have to cross a balance beam, do a flip on a bar, and bounce on a trampoline for points. The human players stand on thier heads and toss balls with thier feet, which the robots have to catch. And we call it...ACROBOTICS! :D

[RudimentaryPeni]

I think that a free car should be given to everyone who participates....(i can still dream)

[bfvaneyck]

Does anybody else realize that the team indicators this year have THREE colors? Red, Blue, and a yellowish green (although some describe it as a greenish yellow). Three alliances? Nine robots on the field??

[SuperJake]

Does anybody else realize that the team indicators this year have THREE colors? Red, Blue, and a yellowish green (although some describe it as a greenish yellow). Three alliances? Nine robots on the field??

Three alliances - 2v2v2. A bunch of people, including myself, seem to like that option. After seeing this year's 3v3, though - it would be a really tough competition. Who do you defend? What goals would you protect? I guess that kinda makes the game more of an offensive one. If you can't defend someone because there are too many choices to go for, then isn't it easier to just do offence instead?

If you ask me, 2v2v2 would be a great way to further offensive play as opposed to penalties. It would be impossible to win against 2 other alliances if your alliance only played defence.

[JohnG]

I think that next year's game should involve more collaboration between teams, but still maintain that constant challenge. I'd think that a game with one robot has to help another robot do a task, and without that other robot, the task would not be able to be finished (In Triple Play, there were three robots doing the same thing: getting points). Perhaps a game where one robot would have to raise another robot to another level or when one robot would have to open up a passage for another robot to go through. I think that if some type of collaborative task is out into play, more teams would be nicer to each other.

[pakrat]

The main problem with a 2v2v2 is that it can very easily turn into a 4v2.

for example.

Red alliance is two undefeated verteran teams (lets call them Chill and Toad Troop)

Blue alliance is consisted of the bustedbox1 and brokenarm1

White alliance has Wethoughttherewasaweek7and8, and also servodrivetrain.

The match starts and immidiately bostedbox1 and Wethoughttherewasaweek7and8 block Chill and Toad Troop, respectively. Then, while being blocked, Chill and Toad Troop manage to score about 10 points. Unfortunately, bustedarm and servodrivetrain each get 11 and 14 points respectively, through some luck and a bit of uber driver skill. Now, there's nothing wrong with having a 2v2v2, but when Chill and Toad troop dont get a real competitive chance, its not remotely fair.

[EricH]

Does anybody else realize that the team indicators this year have THREE colors? Red, Blue, and a yellowish green (although some describe it as a greenish yellow). Three alliances? Nine robots on the field??

I counted some more. My count: red, blue, green, yellow. One red robot once had a blue light on one light and a yellow on the other. Maybe make the lights to connect to a "light" port on the RC?

[techtiger1]

Really, I don't think there's a way (short of the mecanum wheels that are starting to be seen) to reinvent the FIRST drivetrain wheel. The only way to get folks to come up with a radically different drivetrain would be to radically change how they're required to move--monkey bars, anyone?


Billfred Shhhh! wait till u see what 1251 has in the lab. :confused: heheheh :)

[button boy 1100]

hover robots... we need hover robots, but bring back one of the preivious years competitions but make the robots hover

no wheels, no legs, just air...

it genious, and to hover you only need a vaccum motor but moving forward and backward is the real chalengeand stability, that is a really big chalenge...

this would be the best year ever...!

all who think this is a cool idea say AYE!