View Full Version : RACK & ROLL Reaction
Greg Perkins
06-01-2007, 11:12
A center structure with "spiders" and inner-tubes????
OMG it's like a reminiscence of the 98(?) game!!!!! OMG
Robot weight & height CHOICES?
100lbs = 6' limit
110lbs = 5' limit
120lbs = 4' limit
AWESOME
A. Leese
06-01-2007, 11:21
1997
Billfred
06-01-2007, 11:21
Holy.
Cow.
This is going to be intense.
Clark Gilbert
06-01-2007, 11:21
A center structure with "spiders" and inner-tubes????
OMG it's like a reminiscence of the 98(?) game!!!!! OMG
AWESOME
1997, Toroid Terror
Joe Matt
06-01-2007, 11:21
What's with them shaking the structure at the beginning?
Oh god or god.....
bobotics319
06-01-2007, 11:22
This is Going to be CRAZY
Ricky Q.
06-01-2007, 11:23
Lets keep this thread for game reaction and such, rules and everything can be discussed in the Rules forum when they are out. Thanks!
Greg Perkins
06-01-2007, 11:23
Yea, I couldn't remember what year exactly, I was a little too jumpy trying to get the thread posted. I knew it was either 97 or 98.
fredliu168
06-01-2007, 11:24
anyone have videos of toroid terror?
Greg Perkins
06-01-2007, 11:29
It kinda looks like toroid terror, but with some modifications, attached is a pic of the structure in '97.
I wish I was on a team this year, it looks a fantastic challange.
WOW.
Camera is crucial.
as well as the coach.
Good Luck to All!
Chris Sturrock
06-01-2007, 11:32
I myself am still trying to figure out the robot off the ground thing. i didn't see a bar at the end zones...
Dominicano0519
06-01-2007, 11:32
this is like giant tictactoe
Rohan_DHS
06-01-2007, 11:33
wow we're going to see a LOT of interesting designs...It'll be awesome to watch/compete :D
Good Luck =)
BoyWithCape195
06-01-2007, 11:34
I myself am still trying to figure out the robot off the ground thing. i didn't see a bar at the end zones...
Drive on top of another robot...
Ack! I can see visibility being a pretty big issue in this.
Levin571
06-01-2007, 11:36
Also once you get the tube on you essentially own the spot so holding multiple tubes may be crucial
Chris Sturrock
06-01-2007, 11:37
haha well i guess that makes sense.
Malenddruid
06-01-2007, 11:38
This is a very interesting game...It will be very neat to see what other people's designs are for handling the tubes...The only problems I see is how we get the robots elevated and how do we handle the tubes...anyway I think this year will be very challenging. The "Rack" scares me a little... scary to think how we will get tubes on it. I like the yellowcard penalty. Gives teams a reason to be careful throughout all the matches. instead of just getting a rough penalty 1 match losing a few points then doing it again for other matches you get 2 chances. Scoring reminds me a lot of Tic-Tac-Toe. The spoilers are going to pose a big threat to players. Keepers will be fun to place providing teams get their cameras working. I hope all of the teams in this year's competition have fun and come up with awesome ideas! :3
Ken Leung
06-01-2007, 11:42
I myself am still trying to figure out the robot off the ground thing. i didn't see a bar at the end zones...
Two words: Wildstang 2001
sportman3333333
06-01-2007, 11:43
Looks like an awesome challenge. My first year on the team.
fredliu168
06-01-2007, 11:46
the part where the robot must be off the ground makes team collaboration very useful. I'm going to be looking out for the triplets this year. (imagine 3 robots stacking on top of each other)
Joe Johnson
06-01-2007, 11:47
Two words: Wildstang 2001
I am with Ken.
The devil is in the details, but I believe that a Wildlstang 2001 strategy may be too hard to pass up.
The problem will be that Wildstang 2007 will probably try to be Wildstang 2001 PLUS be able to score tubes at will.
Again the devil is in the details, but it may be a very fun game.
Joe J.
I myself am still trying to figure out the robot off the ground thing. i didn't see a bar at the end zones...
to me it looked like the bots were raising themselves. off the ground, but if this was so then the raising mecahnism belongs to the bot and if that is touching the ground then the robot is touching the ground :ahh:
Malenddruid
06-01-2007, 11:49
to me it looked like the bots were raising themselves. off the ground, but if this was so then the raising mecahnism belongs to the bot and if that is touching the ground then the robot is touching the ground :ahh:
That will be a very Interesting thing to ask first...
Horman Havoc
06-01-2007, 11:53
Does anyone have a copy of the game video yet? maybe someone recorded it... or a link to where it is on the site?
Chris Sturrock
06-01-2007, 11:53
i wonder if we could just use EXTREMELY powerful fans... HAHAHA
My guess about the raising thing is that we just have to lift the wheels off the ground
Jonathan Norris
06-01-2007, 12:11
My guess about the raising thing is that we just have to lift the wheels off the ground
No it will be the whole robot off the ground. How about tank drive systems :p
The actual rule states
ROBOTS in HOME ZONE - ROBOTS score bonus points at the end of the match if they are
entirely in their HOME ZONE, not in contact with any element of the field (carpet, alliance
station, goal etc.) and the lowest point of the ROBOT is higher than 4 inches and/or 10
inches above the carpeted field surface.
So your robot simply CANNOT be touching carpet. Not just 'wheels off carpet', but 'everything off carpet'. This means that jokes about fans notwithstanding, the most bonus you can get is 60 points since at least one robot must be on carpet in order to lift two others.
I've thought about it, and it seems that a crane of some sort built on your manipulator (and a semi-standard hook on the to-be-lifted bot) is probably the most viable lifting method. A more universal method where you jack up an alliance robot would probably be more unweildy.
Eric W. Jones
06-01-2007, 12:19
I like the scoring possibilities.
256 points from 8 ringers...:)
henryBsick
06-01-2007, 12:49
Fastest game of FIRST that I have seen.
$.02
I think this is going to make choosing alliance partners particularly complicated- if you take bonus points into consideration, you've got to think about which robots are easy to lift, which can easily lift others, etc, etc.
Plus, think of all the design choices. You can have a hook for another robot to lift you, a hook to lift another robot, a ramp for another robot to drive onto, be small enough to drive onto another robot, a combination of the above...:ahh:
I know, I know, the real game is about the game pieces (and usually decided that way), but I've always been a sucker for the bonus points. =)
Wbrown0389
06-01-2007, 12:55
Does anyone know if it is possible to drop a "ramp" of some sorts in the Home Zone say during auto and complete the remainder of the match? There seems to be conflicting rules saying that we can deploy mechanisms inside the home zone but another rule states that leaving mechanisms behind is a penalty....
Is the FIRST Q&A up?
Maggie27
06-01-2007, 13:06
I can't wait!!!:yikes:
This year is going to be fun....
but I hope our robot doesnt fall apart again:ahh:
Maggie27
06-01-2007, 13:08
I think this is going to make choosing alliance partners particularly complicated- if you take bonus points into consideration, you've got to think about which robots are easy to lift, which can easily lift others, etc, etc.
Plus, think of all the design choices. You can have a hook for another robot to lift you, a hook to lift another robot, a ramp for another robot to drive onto, be small enough to drive onto another robot, a combination of the above...:ahh:
I know, I know, the real game is about the game pieces (and usually decided that way), but I've always been a sucker for the bonus points. =)
Wow...I didn't think about that... O_O
RayleighxFace
06-01-2007, 13:09
This is going to be Great I cannot wait until March. This is my first First competition. Last year our robot feel apart I hope we do alot better this year
See you all in Pittsburgh
StephLee
06-01-2007, 13:25
Does anyone know if it is possible to drop a "ramp" of some sorts in the Home Zone say during auto and complete the remainder of the match? There seems to be conflicting rules saying that we can deploy mechanisms inside the home zone but another rule states that leaving mechanisms behind is a penalty....
Is the FIRST Q&A up?
I'd bet the lifting device has to be attached to your robot in some way; otherwise it's intentional deployment or detachment of pieces.
thefro526
06-01-2007, 13:29
The game Rack and Roll seems like it would be fun.
Did anyone notice that in the kit of parts checklist it only lists that you get (2) 2.5 inch CIM motors?
George A.
06-01-2007, 13:33
The thing I find interesting is that if you get a ringer on, the only way it can be negated is with a spoiler...if Red places a ringer on a spider leg then blue puts a ringer on top of the red ringer red still gets it...so the spoilers are going to be KEY since that's the only way you can stop your opponent from getting points...that or placing a ringer on first...then maybe using on of theirs to protect yours?
The game Rack and Roll seems like it would be fun.
Did anyone notice that in the kit of parts checklist it only lists that you get (2) 2.5 inch CIM motors?
yea there are new gear boxes as-well :ahh:
MissInformation
06-01-2007, 13:37
Rather than post a million words on how I feel about the game, I'll sum it up short and sweet: I like it!!!!
Heidi (whose mind is swarming with visions of a miniature version of the rack to hold donuts... well, it's either that or go to Krispy Kreme and ask them to make really, really large donuts!)
Im wowed. Not only did they give us a intense crazy insane game the also gave something to ponder our minds with. All i have to say is at first I was like Idk if im gonna like this game, but as I was reading the rules I was wowed. FIRST outdid themselves with this one this year. Especially with the rules and the new yellow card thing with the refs. Lets Rack 'N' Roll!
JoeXIII'007
06-01-2007, 14:13
Reaction: *blink* *think* ;) I like it.
Laura 1547
06-01-2007, 14:19
I like it!! I think it will be fun to play in actual competition. It definately reminds me of a giant tic tac toe board or something. The playing field looks really naked without the ramps at the end like last year though...I'm going to have to get used to some giant spindly thing now. I think I like last year's game more but I probably just have to get used to it.
ZeetherKID77
06-01-2007, 14:31
Anyone notice in the animation how they reused robots from animations before? That six-wheeled robot seems to be in EVERY animation EVERY year.
It kinda looks like toroid terror, but with some modifications, attached is a pic of the structure in '97.
I wish I was on a team this year, it looks a fantastic challange.
We still have the robot and the tubes from that year.
JoeXIII'007
06-01-2007, 15:08
Reaction Part II:
The first thing I thought of after seeing the animation was Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens' speech about Net Neutrality. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_of_tubes)
"Ten movies streaming across that, that Internet, and what happens to your own personal Internet? I just the other day got... an Internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday, I got it yesterday. Why? Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the Internet commercially. [...] They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the Internet. And again, the Internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes. And if you don't understand those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and it's going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material."
Now you just have to wonder if this speech really inspired the game for this year... :rolleyes:
Also once you get the tube on you essentially own the spot so holding multiple tubes may be crucial
Nope:
POSSESSION - ROBOTS may only have 1 (one) GAME PIECE in their POSSESSION at
any time during the match. Inadvertent bulldozing of GAME PIECES while the ROBOT
moves around the field is allowed. Controlled "herding" of a single GAME PIECE lying on
the floor is permitted as long as no other GAME PIECE is in the POSSESSION of the
ROBOT. Herding of multiple GAME PIECES, or herding of a GAME PIECE on the floor
while in POSSESSION of another GAME PIECE is not permitted (as this would be
considered POSSESSION of more than one GAME PIECE).
WOW.
Camera is crucial.
as well as the coach.
Good Luck to All!
Crucial to what? Losing?
Chris Hibner
06-01-2007, 15:13
My kneejerk reaction is that I would have liked to be able to see robots hold multiple tubes - that would add a little variety to the design of the robots. However, maybe the game is better without that - it's hard to judge without seeing the game played.
Other than that, I think it should be an interesting game.
Travis Hoffman
06-01-2007, 15:15
OFFENSE????
DEFENSE????
Which will prevail this year?
OFFENSE????
DEFENSE????
Which will prevail this year?
Me. :D
Guy Davidson
06-01-2007, 15:21
I am with Ken.
The devil is in the details, but I believe that a Wildlstang 2001 strategy may be too hard to pass up.
The problem will be that Wildstang 2007 will probably try to be Wildstang 2001 PLUS be able to score tubes at will.
Again the devil is in the details, but it may be a very fun game.
Joe J.
For those of us who are unfamilir, could you please explain the Wildstang 2001 strategy?
Guy
Bethany Mc.
06-01-2007, 15:22
I like it, I like it a lot!!
Though i think it will require us to all communicate with each other during build season on what we are doing as a team as far as shape, so that we will be able to stack our robots in the end.
I wish the best of luck to everyone!!
Happy Build season!:D
Travis Hoffman
06-01-2007, 15:34
For those of us who are unfamilir, could you please explain the Wildstang 2001 strategy?
Guy
This should illustrate their strategy nicely....
http://www.wildstang.org/main/history.php?year=2001
We were partnered with them at Disney one match that year - great fun.
Ryan Albright
06-01-2007, 15:39
i am just going to say i like it, def going to be some interesting strategies and robots.
jesusfreakmths
06-01-2007, 15:42
Ok I am from team 1778 and we wonder if people know any detail info for the ramp and how that is to be played out.
Tetraman
06-01-2007, 15:53
My thoughts? This game is boring. (read carefully to get my point please)
Where is the innovation that the past three years had in their design? First Frenzy gave us all multiple directions we could have taken our robot and the way the alliance worked in combination won the game. Triple Play introduced a new game piece, alliance structure, and a look into how we can manipulate it. Aim High took the boring ball and gave us a new system to use it with. Also there were periods and a critical auto-mode. I see nothing to go overly ballistic about, other than robot stacking.
I'm predicting that the robot design results are going to end up like Triple Play robots, where a vast majority of all them are going to look/act alike. It will all boil down to who's robot is faster. To me thats rather dull.
Now, I see game play as a different story. I can say I expect to see really fun matches, team working alliances, and crazy point totals. But the game, how it works, and how you win, is rather boring to me.
Bethany Mc.
06-01-2007, 15:59
Crucial to what? Losing?
No, I think it's crucial to getting the rings on during the autonomous period, since they rotate "The Rack" before each match. Meaning the green lights, and the spider legs might not be right in front of you.
Now do they rotate it before you place your robots on the feild or after? Does anyone know?
My first reaction when I saw the rack was "holy hell."
Game beng explained, it's going to be interesting to see the use of a tactician in these matches. Getting those keepers out looks like it will be crucial to securing at least a few legs early on. It will also be interesting to see robot lifting mechanisms this year, I forsee quite a few flipped or fallen robots at regionals.
karinka13
06-01-2007, 16:00
I have to disagree with you, Tetraman. I LOVE this game!!
I think we're going to see a huge variety in robots, unlike last year when there were pretty much just variations of two basic designs. Tons of options for design, strategy, and everything! And the matches are going to be so intense!
SOO PSYCHED! :D
Borderline_Ouka
06-01-2007, 16:00
i think that this will be a pretty big challenge, the bonus points are a big potential for points but it could also damage a poorly designed 'bot.
plus you can only get so many bots up unless one features an antigrav type thing.
our team thought at first that it would be great to be able to use the opposing alliance's tubes to negate their own points but after longer revision of the rules shows that we can't use them...
big challenge and should be lots of fun, GOOD LUCK TO ALL!!!!
Tetraman
06-01-2007, 16:09
I have to disagree with you, Tetraman. I LOVE this game!!
I think we're going to see a huge variety in robots, unlike last year when there were pretty much just variations of two basic designs. Tons of options for design, strategy, and everything! And the matches are going to be so intense!
SOO PSYCHED! :D
Your definition of variety and mine might be different. I can see how many of the robots will be: Chassis, Arm/Tower, Ring gripper on the Arm. The only variety is how they put that into design.
karinka13
06-01-2007, 16:12
From 433's initial brainstorming session today, we got a lot of interesting robot design ideas that weren't just the basic arm and chassis...which I won't share, so you'll just have to take my word for it. :P
mtaman02
06-01-2007, 16:15
It kinda looks like toroid terror, but with some modifications, attached is a pic of the structure in '97.
I wish I was on a team this year, it looks a fantastic challange.
You know if I didn't know any better I would say they (GDC) were shooting for a 10 yr anniversary for Toroid Terror. The 2 games look similar except the '07 version has many different twists. I'm kinda curious as to how the '97 game was played (A Description). Once again The GDC, Dean Woodie and Dave sent another shocker - The season has just begun and I'm curious as to what '08 may bring. :]. I can honestly see the veteran teams having the upper hand on this one if they can remember what they did in '97.
Oh and just for looks what a SHOCKER :confused: :eek: :yikes:
I know that this isn't the thread so no BASHING =) but how much of the robot needs to be off the ground? The whole thing meaning Drive system and all or can there be a pneumatic lift under the robot and that would be the only device touching once everything is lifted up? I will copy this question and move it to the rules thread but wanted some quick insight.
Tetraman
06-01-2007, 16:20
From 433's initial brainstorming session today, we got a lot of interesting robot design ideas that weren't just the basic arm and chassis...which I won't share, so you'll just have to take my word for it. :P
I will agree that there will always be a robot that is different than a standard, I can be wrong, and I most likely will be wrong, but I feel like many robots will be similar.
Like I said, I don't think the game play will be dull, I just think the design of the game feels a little lacking.
No, I think it's crucial to getting the rings on during the autonomous period, since they rotate "The Rack" before each match. Meaning the green lights, and the spider legs might not be right in front of you.
Now do they rotate it before you place your robots on the feild or after? Does anyone know?
It was mentioned at kickoff (and in the rules) that it will be rotated after the robots are placed on the field.
Dan Kramer
06-01-2007, 16:28
OK - so this is probably in the manual, but I'll ask anyway...:rolleyes:
do the end of match 'elevated robot bonus points' mean one alliance member is not scoring, in that the other robots must be on top of, or suspended by, this robot <someone must be touching the ground, right?>
Zero-Bee
06-01-2007, 16:33
My first reaction.
O.o
Are those... inflatable pool tubes?
Robots, and tubes, and spiders OH MY! So much to pay attention to...
6 foot 8
06-01-2007, 16:42
Dan Kramer, i'm in agreement with your belief, unless you could hover yourself with two ramps and two robots :rolleyes: , but otherwise yes, one robot has to be touching the ground, any other thoughts anyone?
Kyle Love
06-01-2007, 16:45
Ill start practicing scoring on the other side of the rack now, maybe I'll be good by time St Louis comes around. Man scoring on the other side of the rack will be hard...I think...it might be something that could become easy.
JaneYoung
06-01-2007, 16:45
My first reaction when I saw the rack was "holy hell."
This reminded me of a thread called, Ewww Spiders, and particularly a post made by KoKoEd.
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=511615&postcount=22
Jane
lukevanoort
06-01-2007, 16:51
It will also be interesting to see robot lifting mechanisms this year, I forsee quite a few flipped or fallen robots at regionals.
This was one of my reactions too, but then it occurred to me that these innertubes appear very light, thus the arms can be quite light, hence the average center of gravity isn't going to necessarily be as high, say, last year or the year before where many robots either had a heavy shooter high up or a heavy arm with one or more heavy game pieces high up.
Spiffizzle
06-01-2007, 17:00
See, I took a child-like view to my first look at the game... the rack looked like a fun jungle gym :p
I'm really excited for this game. The variety of robot will be intense and the strategy is tough because of the detailed rules on scoring and what colors cancel and which tube does what...
And then this bonus stuff about getting robots off the ground... that will really make each robot varied but hopefully there won't be any dropped or crushed robots due to teammates! :yikes:
JamesBrown
06-01-2007, 17:03
Crucial to what? Losing?
I assume you havent been on the field yet but you cannot see around the rack very well and it will be key to having control of legs on that side. if you can aim with the camera that will be a big advantage.
I really don't see how it could cause you to lose.
BaysianLogik
06-01-2007, 17:17
Very interesting looking game.
My only complaint is in the Rack design. I think we'll see the two sides keeping mostly to themselves, even more than usual in a FIRST competition. This is because it will be insanely difficult to score on the opposing side between the lack of visilibility due to the rack itself and already scored Ringers and facing the opposite direction as the driver is used to. The only interaction will probably be between the robots solely designed to be ramps, driving around the opposing side to slow down the enemy scoring.
I think if it were one large wall there would be a lot more use of the Spoilers and strategic Ringer placement than we are going to see.
Camera usage is definitely going to be critical if you want to score points during autonomous mode.
I rather like the game. The rack is one of the things I like the most about the game. It feels like there is so many options in the game in the way of strategy of placement. The game play should be really hard a times in the way of getting a view of the field. I guess its time to train our drivers the way of the force:p
Vexkingof716
06-01-2007, 17:38
When I first saw it I was speachless.:ahh: It was so far from what I was thinking. I sat there with my mouth open for like 5 minutes, then my friend elbowed me. I still don't totally know what to say but omg this is going to be interesting. :eek:
Michael Hill
06-01-2007, 17:42
To me, it seemed just like another FIRST game...is that possible? I wasn't really shocked, but that could either be to not much new in the technology sense, or it's that I've come to expect this type of game. Anyway, I think it will be fun. :)
Athleticgirl389
06-01-2007, 17:51
See, I took a child-like view to my first look at the game... the rack looked like a fun jungle gym :p
OOOOOOO!!! I totally thought the same thing!!! Then the inner tubes... and on top of that, (eventaully) robots :cool: It's like a child's dream come true lmao.
As per the game, I like it, yet think it has combinations of past years games. It really isn't 100% creative in that aspect. Although the "tower", the 4 lights, and the way to get bonus points in the end gives it it's creativity. It will be quite interesting to see what teams come up with; this game does have many possible solutions.
(side note: since i am on team 102, i must point out this is post number 102 for me hehe)
Uberbots
06-01-2007, 17:54
Two words: Wildstang 2001
As enticing as that sounds, 8.3.1.R05 states that wedge robots arent allowed... )=
edit:
wow i was completely disproven... thanks ken keung for pointing out my ignorance.
Protronie
06-01-2007, 17:55
This game should prove to be AWESOME!
Gonna take team work, skill, and luck to win. :cool:
Best of luck to all of you!
Daniel Brim
06-01-2007, 17:59
This game looks like it will be rather exciting to both watch and play. With so many simultaneous actions (one spoiler can make or break a game), it will be exciting to watch. There are several things that I think could have made this game better, however. It probably isn't the most crowd-friendly game, because it does take awhile to understand. I also wish that the tube on top would own the rack, because that would make the game more dynamic. Other than that, I think it's great.
Ken Leung
06-01-2007, 18:00
As enticing as that sounds, 8.3.1.R05 states that wedge robots arent allowed... )=
8.3.1.R06
<R06> Ramps, platforms as other mechanisms specifically designed to elevate ROBOTS during the END GAME are exempt from Rule <R05> when they are deployed in the HOME ZONE. Such devices deployed outside the HOME ZONE are not covered by this exemption.
Makes the game interesting, doesn't it?
Jonathan Norris
06-01-2007, 18:00
My only complaint is in the Rack design. I think we'll see the two sides keeping mostly to themselves, even more than usual in a FIRST competition. This is because it will be insanely difficult to score on the opposing side between the lack of visilibility due to the rack itself and already scored Ringers and facing the opposite direction as the driver is used to.
I totally agree that it is going to be very difficult to score on the opposite end of the rack from where the driver is standing from, but this brings in the innovation. To score effectively you are going to have to use the CMU in the scoring process like last year. The really effective teams are going to be able to use the CMU in auto and in-game for blind (driver) scoring. I actually like that they are forcing the CMU on us this year, people said they did last year but many teams got away without using (my team included). This year you have no choice but to use it for autonomous, there is nothing else you can do in auto (other than D), unlike last year with dumping.
Game reaction:
First thought.. I like it... not as awestruck as i was last year but inner tubes will be good scoring objects. Last year was the year for strong drive systems, where this year a team can make good use of a omni drive system. However, don't neglect the defense that can be played in this game. A successful robot will be a defensive beast with *multiple* lifting capabilities. This is why I think that omni teams my be disappointed when the going get tough...
BuddyB309
06-01-2007, 18:10
I see some interesting problems that can occur
Team A "Alright we got are ramp down and are ready to allow a robot to climb on top of us"
Team B "Look! team A has there ramp down and we only got a few seconds left!! Hurry!!"
Team A "NO stop! your comming in to fast!"
Crash!
Wow! great challenge for us all!! Go teams!! :D
Tetraman
06-01-2007, 18:42
I see some interesting problems that can occur
Team A "Alright we got are ramp down and are ready to allow a robot to climb on top of us"
Team B "Look! team A has there ramp down and we only got a few seconds left!! Hurry!!"
Team A "NO stop! your comming in to fast!"
Crash!
Hahahahaha.
Def something teams need to worry about
Dan Petrovic
06-01-2007, 18:49
My jaw dropped when they revealed The Rack.
I don't like the name.
I don't like the impact autonomous has.
I don't like the human player interaction.
I don't like how you can't take over a goal when someone has already placed a ring there.
I do like the lifting, that will be very impressive
I do like how speed is very important
I do like the bonuses from making rows
I do like how teams can really work together to form a great alliance.
That's what I think.
Lil' Lavery
06-01-2007, 18:57
My first thought was "Crap"
My second was, "hey, this is Toroid Terror."
But I can say, after watching about an hour of Toroid Terror videos from the 97 Mid-Atlantic Regional, strategy-wise they are nothing alike. Nothing.
Toroid Terror rewarded points for actual inner tubes (which this doesn't, which is the first demise of volume scoring). Additionally, Toroid Terror rewarded bonus points only for vertical rows, not horizontal. Toroid Terror had no alliances. It allowed human players to place the tubes on the robot (not just through a slot), and receive new tubes from the robots. The tower freely rotated in Toroid Terror, and several rings could be placed on each prong (you're only allowed 2 this year). Toroid Terror didn't have autonomous, and had no "King of the Hill" or Positioning Bonus points. Toroid Terror allowed bots to carry more than 1 game piece. Now that we've thrown away the strategic value of Toroid Terror, someone please help me develop a game strategy? ;)
As for the vision around the Rack, notice this little rule:
<R109> Any decorations that involve broadcasting a signal to/from the ROBOT, such as remote
cameras, must be cleared with FIRST Engineering prior to the event and tested for
communications interference at the venue. This is the one permissible exception to Rule
<R66>. Note that 900 MHz camera systems will not be approved, and are not permitted at
any time.
BaysianLogik
06-01-2007, 19:04
To score effectively you are going to have to use the CMU in the scoring process like last year. The really effective teams are going to be able to use the CMU in auto and in-game for blind (driver) scoring. I actually like that they are forcing the CMU on us this year, people said they did last year but many teams got away without using (my team included). This year you have no choice but to use it for autonomous, there is nothing else you can do in auto (other than D), unlike last year with dumping.
I'll believe that we'll have an effective use of the camera when i see it...they've said for the last 3 years that they've made an effective out-of-the-box camera setup, and each year it's a pain. Adding the difficulty of the arena geometry algorithm you have to do in order to properly estimate where the pole is in-system, i'm not holding my breath.
Rick-906
06-01-2007, 19:15
so im just wondering... and this is most likely against the rules... why not just pick your robot up... and put a tube under it for the bonus points... its not touching the playing field, and if its light enough it wont pop the tube, im sure they thought of that, but it would be interesting if they didnt
(Click_Here)
06-01-2007, 19:22
Well If the team didn't take apart their 1997 robot we would all ready be done. :P
But the game it's self is very nice this year, the only problem will be trying to drive the robot with a huge obstacle in the way that can make it hard to see whats going on.
The USB ext on the operating interface is going to be very cool for inovative controls and also having the ease to make the controllers a lot smaller in size.
Inter tubes are going to be very fun also.
Good Luck Everyone on your design.
pyroslev
06-01-2007, 19:24
(Looks away from the monitor the rule book)
I love the rule that you can only carry one, can't push during it and such. It's one of those things that will prove interesting on the field.
Add in the USB and it will prove interesting as to what we see.
Scoring seems rather simple.
darkember
06-01-2007, 19:37
so im just wondering... and this is most likely against the rules... why not just pick your robot up... and put a tube under it for the bonus points... its not touching the playing field, and if its light enough it wont pop the tube, im sure they thought of that, but it would be interesting if they didnt
It states in <G56> that the robot can't be in contact with any element of the field, which probably includes the tubes.
your right, it would be intresting.
My first reaction was "Where am I am gonna find pool noodles AND inner tubes in the middle of winter in Michigan?" As for the game, it has potential to be pretty interesting, but I suspect we'll see a lot of similar appendages that we have seen from 2005 (most likely) and other past games.
My first reaction:
"How could I have not figured out the clue before now?"
:o
At first I was sad because we weren't shooting anything. I really liked that aspect of the game last year and that it felt like a real sport. After thinking about strategies and game tactics more though, I am starting to like Rack and Roll a lot. I love the elevation of robots in the home zones and the different weight/height classes. They offer an interesting trade-off. It is nice to see something different, and I think it will be great to see how the game is played.
Tetraman
06-01-2007, 19:50
Now that we've thrown away the strategic value of Toroid Terror, someone please help me develop a game strategy? ;)
Be fast............................................?
This is exactly why I don't like the game design. The entire competition is 'in the moment'. Possibly the only strategy you can formulate now is the robot stacking.
darkember
06-01-2007, 19:51
you know what will be hard, if a robot is nearly six feet tall and it trys to climb a ramb onto another robot. The robot will probably fall over.
darkember
06-01-2007, 19:54
The bonus points seem to be harder to get then the game points.
Billfred
06-01-2007, 19:58
you know what will be hard, if a robot is nearly six feet tall and it trys to climb a ramb onto another robot. The robot will probably fall over.That's far too broad a statement to be making. Lots of six-foot robots climbed the ramp in 2006, which was far steeper than teams have to make theirs this year.
darkember
06-01-2007, 20:01
That's far too broad a statement to be making. Lots of six-foot robots climbed the ramp in 2006, which was far steeper than teams have to make theirs this year.
but what if the ramb is steep and the robots center of gravity is above the center of the robot. Also, you wont have as good of a traction going up the ramp.
That's far too broad a statement to be making. Lots of six-foot robots climbed the ramp in 2006, which was far steeper than teams have to make theirs this year.
If I recall correctly, last year's height limit was 5ft.
Darkember: that all depends on the robot's drivetrain, and the way the robot with the ramp builds it.
darkember
06-01-2007, 20:03
This year they are letting you go up to six feet but the robot has to be under 100 pounds.
Pavan Dave
06-01-2007, 20:04
A mentor on my team called the game a few days ago. He said inner tubes with something like tic-tac-toe or something. Also I do not like the game much. I have seen footages from previous robots from previous years that have been able to do this mission. (I Speculate that they have been able to do this mission because I have yet to see it for myself, but the idea in my opinion is a combination of old ones.) I hoped that FIRST had something a bit more challenging and maybe had thought of something that does not combine past ideas. Other organizations can do it, and first even has 6-7 months to think about what they want to do too.
I am dissatisfied very much with this game.
Pavan.
Rich Wong
06-01-2007, 20:05
Two words: Wildstang 2001
Yes! Definitely the 2001 Widlstang.
I just pulled the video out of my archives of wildstang executing the perfect ramp maneuver.
Back to the topic-
This years Rack & Roll...... (after more than 6 hours of thinking)...
I LIKE IT!
It is going to be FUN.
Now, I have to find a team to do my biddings! Ma ha ha.
;)
This year they are letting you go up to six feet but the robot has to be under 100 pounds.
It does not matter what the weight of the robot is as if its center of gravity is high it may fall if it tries to go up a ramp at a high speed.
darkember
06-01-2007, 20:09
i said that earlier
Pavan Dave
06-01-2007, 20:11
very true....CG is very important when people are considering ramps on their robot.
Pavan.
Squirrel Lord
06-01-2007, 20:11
(Looks away from the monitor the rule book)
I love the rule that you can only carry one, can't push during it and such. It's one of those things that will prove interesting on the field.
Add in the USB and it will prove interesting as to what we see.
Scoring seems rather simple.
Blue Tooth Wii-Mote anyone? Hook it up and away you go...
This will not be all about speed, mainly because the rack will be moving far too much not to stop and aim. One of our coaches saw a rig and it could not stay still enough to fire onto or to just quickly deposit. Plus the idea that you cannot place the Spoilers on the Keepers or that you can lock up a leg with a Spoiler then a ringer makes the game very strategy oriented. The programing team is going to have fun with the autonomous mode.
I am very happy with this years game, it has so many strategies!
Elgin Clock
06-01-2007, 20:15
Anyone notice in the animation how they reused robots from animations before? That six-wheeled robot seems to be in EVERY animation EVERY year.
Yep. I think we should start a (fake) rule that Dave can't reuse previous year's robots as we can't in the games. :p
My thoughts? This game is boring. (read carefully to get my point please)
Where is the innovation that the past three years had in their design? First Frenzy gave us all multiple directions we could have taken our robot and the way the alliance worked in combination won the game. Triple Play introduced a new game piece, alliance structure, and a look into how we can manipulate it. Aim High took the boring ball and gave us a new system to use it with. Also there were periods and a critical auto-mode. I see nothing to go overly ballistic about, other than robot stacking.
I'm predicting that the robot design results are going to end up like Triple Play robots, where a vast majority of all them are going to look/act alike. It will all boil down to who's robot is faster. To me thats rather dull.
Now, I see game play as a different story. I can say I expect to see really fun matches, team working alliances, and crazy point totals. But the game, how it works, and how you win, is rather boring to me.
Seeing the field in person changes that. Trust me. I thought it was like a normal coat rack at first and kinda had the same reaction (actually I thought the whole thing spun around - silly me), but I will post some video later I took of the whole thing moving around with one simple nudge into a diamond plate piece.
Movement of the scoring SPIDER LEGS will be interesting to overcome.
My first reaction when I saw the rack was "holy hell."
Indeed. :eek:
OK - so this is probably in the manual, but I'll ask anyway.
do the end of match 'elevated robot bonus points' mean one alliance member is not scoring, in that the other robots must be on top of, or suspended by, this robot <someone must be touching the ground, right?>
Uhh.. suuuree. .;)
This was one of my reactions too, but then it occurred to me that these innertubes appear very light, thus the arms can be quite light, hence the average center of gravity isn't going to necessarily be as high, say, last year or the year before where many robots either had a heavy shooter high up or a heavy arm with one or more heavy game pieces high up.
Appearences are sometimes incorrect, but not this time. They are in fact very light (less than soccer balls of the past and waaaaay lighter than tetras) This is probably the lightest game element I have seen (member since 2001).
As far as durability, over a course of a regional they will become beat up and pop yes.. one KEEPER lost it's life today at the Manchester kickoff already.
BUT, the good news is they are very thick walled inner tubes as fas as being pool quality. They are no high quality truck inner tubes, but are pretty durable none-the-less.
See, I took a child-like view to my first look at the game... the rack looked like a fun jungle gym :p
Indeed. :D
Billfred
06-01-2007, 20:29
If I recall correctly, last year's height limit was 5ft.
Darkember: that all depends on the robot's drivetrain, and the way the robot with the ramp builds it.
You're right--my brain just clocked out at 1:00 today. (This is what happens when you stay up until midnight the night before, then wake up at 6:15 to get ready for presenting at your local Kickoff.)
It does not matter what the weight of the robot is as if its center of gravity is high it may fall if it tries to go up a ramp at a high speed.
but what if the ramb is steep and the robots center of gravity is above the center of the robot. Also, you wont have as good of a traction going up the ramp.
Again, generalizations. Many things are possible in FRC, just with trade-offs of various sorts. It just takes thought and planning.
Kim Masi
06-01-2007, 20:30
Why does everyone keep saying tic-tac-toe? My immediate reaction was connect four. Except this is more like connect 24!
At first I really wasn't a fan of the game. But now that I've given it a chance and read through the rules carefully, I think it will be a lot of fun and exciting!
Beth Sweet
06-01-2007, 20:31
Well, I'm still trying to decide whether I like this game or not. I think that it's going to be really tough on the rookies because to compete, they're really going to have to design some sort of an arm. I know our rookie year was tetras and we really had a difficult time. I think we capped one tetra the entire competition...
I'm also a bit concerned about the number of things to do. Everyone is doing one thing, putting on innertubes. I'm not sure I like that, I kinda enjoyed last year's variety.
Also, I'm exceptionally concerned that we will not be able to build a rack. That thing was pretty tall at the kickoff and frankly, I don't think the high school has ceilings that high. Where are we going to put it, where could we store it? Maybe our team is the only one with that issue, but it exists.
Like it or not, I would like to thank the GDC for working their posteriors off to make us a great game.
Tetraman
06-01-2007, 20:35
Now wait...if you make a 110 pount robot, it HAS to be between 4 and 5 feet?
Well, I'm still trying to decide whether I like this game or not. I think that it's going to be really tough on the rookies because to compete, they're really going to have to design some sort of an arm. I know our rookie year was tetras and we really had a difficult time. I think we capped one tetra the entire competition...
I'm also a bit concerned about the number of things to do. Everyone is doing one thing, putting on innertubes. I'm not sure I like that, I kinda enjoyed last year's variety.
Also, I'm exceptionally concerned that we will not be able to build a rack. That thing was pretty tall at the kickoff and frankly, I don't think the high school has ceilings that high. Where are we going to put it, where could we store it? Maybe our team is the only one with that issue, but it exists.
Like it or not, I would like to thank the GDC for working their posteriors off to make us a great game.
We also have that problem. Our shop ceilings are around 8.5 feet tall. The only place we can store something like this is in a gym, and even then we need to schedule time to use it.
One thing about the rack, the talles spider is 7 feet 8 inches off the ground, which just gives you enough room for that. But if you want to use the vision system and targets, you need the 10 feet.
/dan
=Martin=Taylor=
06-01-2007, 20:38
My thoughts? This game is boring. (read carefully to get my point please)
Where is the innovation that the past three years had in their design? First Frenzy gave us all multiple directions we could have taken our robot and the way the alliance worked in combination won the game. Triple Play introduced a new game piece, alliance structure, and a look into how we can manipulate it. Aim High took the boring ball and gave us a new system to use it with. Also there were periods and a critical auto-mode. I see nothing to go overly ballistic about, other than robot stacking.
I'm predicting that the robot design results are going to end up like Triple Play robots, where a vast majority of all them are going to look/act alike. It will all boil down to who's robot is faster. To me thats rather dull.
Now, I see game play as a different story. I can say I expect to see really fun matches, team working alliances, and crazy point totals. But the game, how it works, and how you win, is rather boring to me.
Unfortunately that is why this game is so hard. I keep coming up with designs in my head and then saying "No can't do that, everyone will do that."
Finding a niche will be very difficult.
On another note, just because the robots "look" the same doesn’t mean they will be the same. The crucial autonomous mode and the prospect of scoring on the other side of a goal where you can't see, present daunting programming challenges.
I think this will be a great year for software and sensor innovation.
Now wait...if you make a 110 pount robot, it HAS to be between 4 and 5 feet?
No, the maximum height would then be 5 feet.
Pavan Dave
06-01-2007, 20:57
Correct me if I'm wrong but, If it's 110lbs it can be from 0'-5'. If it's 111lbs it has to be 4 feet. Just an example, but still it works I think.
Unfortunately that is why this game is so hard. I keep coming up with designs in my head and then saying "No can't do that, everyone will do that."
Finding a niche will be very difficult.
On another note, just because the robots "look" the same doesn’t mean they will be the same. The crucial autonomous mode and the prospect of scoring on the other side of a goal where you can't see, present daunting programming challenges.
I think this will be a great year for software and sensor innovation.
I'm very sorry to say this but although many people will design many new robots. The winning teams will do research with previous games that had similar concepts etc. and maybe pick and choose wisely from old robots and than make their own of those ideas. I do not think that this game is challenging because of this reason. Last year for instance we had not had a game similar to this but this year this is basically a FIRST KICK OFF '9? Version 2.
Pavan.
Brandon Holley
06-01-2007, 21:01
this game looks effin sweet to me. I like how we have an open field to collect or pick up a tube, and then we have the complicated, yet fairly compact scoring object considering that all the scoring besides lifting bots will be done within that center structure.
I think the GDC went with this game to show how much these robots have progressed over the years. Although its similary to 97, its no where near the same game play. This is our chance to show that our robots are getting smarter, and way more advanced as we go through the years.
rack and roll is fine with me!
My feeling toward this game, interesting. It doesn't seem to be a high scoring game, with 90 being the average I think. The strategy will be interesting as well. Can two teams carry a RINGER score while one just lifts and plays D, will the vision system be as integral of a part this year, will Human or floor be the main scoring mode, one last thing you cant own every goal which makes it interesting.
cfox2008
06-01-2007, 21:08
This game looks pretty cool. My first thought was "Crap...gotta get the camera to work this year"...though it does look like it will be a little bit easier to implement this year.
JaneYoung
06-01-2007, 21:08
I'm thinking this game will be a crowd pleaser.
Easy to understand, wonderfully visual. Drama, excitement, collaboration oh my!
I think this will be a great year to invite folks to come see FIRST in action and share in the fun - the teams will be rocking. Go GDC!
Lil' Lavery
06-01-2007, 21:11
I'm very sorry to say this but although many people will design many new robots. The winning teams will do research with previous games that had similar concepts etc. and maybe pick and choose wisely from old robots and than make their own of those ideas. I do not think that this game is challenging because of this reason. Last year for instance we had not had a game similar to this but this year this is basically a FIRST KICK OFF '9? Version 2.
Pavan.
Pavan, please consult my earlier post (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=549261&postcount=93) in this thread for differences between this and the 1997 game, Toroid Terror. Even though both game used inner tubes and placed them onto poles, the strategies and robots will not be similar. Because robots could hold multiple tubes in 97, and the human players were granted much more freedom to interact with the robots, manipulators will have to be different than most of them in 97. Many of the competitive teams in 1997 didn't even attempt to load directly from the floor to their robots, but would push the tubes to their HP and have them load the tubes. A couple teams couldn't even score on the center tower at all, and just pushed tubes to their HP to let them score on it (it was far easier to throw tubes onto that goal, as their was to player station wall like there is now). While these may sound like minor differences, they greatly impacted robot design.
Richard Wallace
06-01-2007, 21:16
Tomorrow I'd like to try this: stand near the Rack (e.g., at station 1) holding a Ringer. Have two students stand near other parts of the Rack (stations 4 and 6) and randomly bump the bottom or middle Spider Arm Plates, while I try to put the Ringer on a Spider Arm at my station, using one hand.
I'm thinking this is going to be a test of my reaction time. And I'm thinking it would also test a driver's reaction time to try the same feat using a robot. I'm thinking that the CMU camera will only be able to tell the robot the time-average location of the swinging Spider Arm Plates.
I'm thinking that Rack scoring will be hard.
my own personal opinion? that rack is VERY unstable. if 1-3 people can rotate it think what a full speed 120 lb robot can do if it rams the rack
***sees rack topple over on top another robot***:eek: :ahh:
Well, in regards to the complaints about the ease of scoring: I think this complaint comes up every year. That's most of the fun of FIRST- the games are complicated and dynamic, it's not like most traditional sports where you can easily keep track of goals scored. The scores go up as well as down, since there are usually ways for teams to "descore" the other alliance's points, plus the bonus points really make the last few seconds exciting. Also, the games only last a few minutes, so it's not like there's time to stop and explain and discuss the penalties and validity of the apparent scores as they happen (like when game pieces aren't fully within the goals or are touching other field elements and they aren't legally scored) So you know what? For better or for worse, I don't think there will ever be a FIRST game that's easy to score as a spectator.
I do agree, however, that the ability to only see one side of the rack during the match is going to make things very hard for everyone, and I'm not quite sure I like it. =/
Jonathan Norris
06-01-2007, 21:25
My feeling toward this game, interesting. It doesn't seem to be a high scoring game, with 90 being the average I think. The strategy will be interesting as well. Can two teams carry a RINGER score while one just lifts and plays D, will the vision system be as integral of a part this year, will Human or floor be the main scoring mode, one last thing you cant own every goal which makes it interesting.
I think this will be a higher scoring game with the opportunity to realistically score 8 tubes in one row for 256 points, I will bet that it will happen at least once. I say that 2 tube scoring robots could do it if they focus on placing them up there early, then protect the spoilers from being placed on the top row (by taking them off). Seeing that you can't score for your opponents, what are you going to do when you have scored more than enough to win the game... score more. It will be a high scoring game, you can write this down.. we will see scores over 250 this year.
I think this will be a higher scoring game with the opportunity to realistically score 8 tubes in one row for 256 points, I will bet that it will happen at least once. I say that 2 tube scoring robots could do it if they focus on placing them up there early, then protect the spoilers from being placed on the top row (by taking them off). Seeing that you can't score for your opponents, what are you going to do when you have scored more than enough to win the game... score more. It will be a high scoring game, you can write this down.. we will see scores over 250 this year.
That all depends on your opponents. All they need is to score 3 ringers, and theres no way you're getting a row of 8. In my opinion, the only way that'll happen is if the other alliance has no halfway decent tube scorers and no good defensive bots.
Don't count on high scores. I think defense is being underestimated. A simple KOP robot could cause a sophisticated robot a lot of trouble. A well build defensive robot could cause havoc for an entire alliance.
I can think of at least one defensive strategy that teams must be able to counter that may not be so obvious.
Pavan Dave
06-01-2007, 21:49
I'm thinking this game will be a crowd pleaser.
Easy to understand, wonderfully visual. Drama, excitement, collaboration oh my!
I think this will be a great year to invite folks to come see FIRST in action and share in the fun - the teams will be rocking. Go GDC!\
Scoring is horrible to keep up with.
Not that great since if you are lucky you can see 5 sides at most, there is NO drama or excitement because it is a quick game not enough time for anything to happen besides a few bumps with bots.. No tipping expected until bonus.
Pavan.
Pavan, please consult my earlier post (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=549261&postcount=93) in this thread for differences between this and the 1997 game, Toroid Terror. Even though both game used inner tubes and placed them onto poles, the strategies and robots will not be similar. Because robots could hold multiple tubes in 97, and the human players were granted much more freedom to interact with the robots, manipulators will have to be different than most of them in 97. Many of the competitive teams in 1997 didn't even attempt to load directly from the floor to their robots, but would push the tubes to their HP and have them load the tubes. A couple teams couldn't even score on the center tower at all, and just pushed tubes to their HP to let them score on it (it was far easier to throw tubes onto that goal, as their was to player station wall like there is now). While these may sound like minor differences, they greatly impacted robot design.
Honestly, it is not the fact that they changed a FEW concepts of the game. It is still the same game to a degree. No matter what you do you are still putting tubes on poles. The fact of the matter is that they had around seven months to develop a challenging UNIQUE game yet they chose to modify an old one. That is my "beef" with FIRST.
Pavan.
George A.
06-01-2007, 21:56
Scoring is horrible to keep up with.
Not that great since if you are lucky you can see 5 sides at most, there is NO drama or excitement because it is a quick game not enough time for anything to happen besides a few bumps with bots.. No tipping expected until bonus.
I'm willing to bet there's going to be a lot of tipping...more so than in previous years. If you have a 6 ft bot going to try to hang a Ringer from the top level of spider legs, and a little 4 ft bot trying to play defense...gravity will eventually take its course. Granted with no wedges and the bumper zone in effect it won't be ideal conditions for tipping (not that tipping is ever ideal) but still...expect tipping to occur.
ChuckDickerson
06-01-2007, 21:56
Tomorrow I'd like to try this: stand near the Rack (e.g., at station 1) holding a Ringer. Have two students stand near other parts of the Rack (stations 4 and 6) and randomly bump the bottom or middle Spider Arm Plates, while I try to put the Ringer on a Spider Arm at my station, using one hand.
I'm thinking this is going to be a test of my reaction time. And I'm thinking it would also test a driver's reaction time to try the same feat using a robot. I'm thinking that the CMU camera will only be able to tell the robot the time-average location of the swinging Spider Arm Plates.
I'm thinking that Rack scoring will be hard.
Richard, I very much agree. Our remote rickoff only had a wood mockup of the rack but I have studied the drawings and think I am correct is saying the 4 green lights remain (more or less) stationary while the spiders are able to swing around quite a bit relative to the light position. Now the wood mockup we had at the remote kickoff seemed generally pretty unstable but I assume the real deal (metal rack) will be a more rigid frame. I understand the camera can now (supposedly) track multiple targets (green lights) but I don't think that means it can track the diamond plate circles can it? What I can't figure out is if the camera system can only help you find the relatively stationary green light(s) how is it supposed to be able to track the moving spiders at all and get your ring delivery mechanism within +/- 1.5" of being on target. I derive the +/- 1.5" simply by subtracting the 10" diameter diamond plate circle from the 13" center hole of the pool ring and dividing by 2. Since the rule apparently do not allow you to hold the spider steady to allow easier placement of the rings I believe scoring the rings might be more difficult than first glance.
Richard Wallace
06-01-2007, 22:01
... It is still the same game to a degree. No matter what you do you are still putting tubes on poles. The fact of the matter is that they had around seven months to develop a challenging UNIQUE game yet they chose to modify an old one. That is my "beef" with FIRST.To me that seems like saying that American football is the same game as rugby or Aussie rules, because in all three games the ball is oblong, you throw, catch, kick, and run with it while slamming and getting slammed, and you get points for putting it over the the other team's end line.
The differences and the beauties lie in the details.
I'm not really sure if I like it. It will definately be an intense game. The only part I really don't like is how you can only control one tube at a time but I suppose that prevents domination. I knew I shoulad have got more of those pool noodles. They are hard to find for the bumpers.
George A.
06-01-2007, 22:04
You keep talking about being able to see across the Rack for driving...imagine the poor by play announcer who has to commentate on the action across the field...of course I kid, but still, I'm sure visibility will come into effect sooner or later.
Mike Starke
06-01-2007, 22:05
I didn't like the game at first, but it's growing on me a lot. I am really starting to like it! This game will have a lot of strategy to it!
GOOD LUCK!
See you at FLR, or NATS!
Pavan Dave
06-01-2007, 22:06
To me that seems like saying that American football is the same game as rugby or Aussie rules, because in all three games the ball is oblong, you throw, catch, kick, and run with it while slamming and getting slammed, and you get points for putting it over the the other team's end line.
The differences and the beauties lie in the details.
To me it seems like the difference in basketball and street ball, because they are only changing rules and the layout not the game intentionally or anything like that in my opinion.
Pavan.
Dominicano0519
06-01-2007, 22:07
Does anyone know if it is possible to drop a "ramp" of some sorts in the Home Zone say during auto and complete the remainder of the match? There seems to be conflicting rules saying that we can deploy mechanisms inside the home zone but another rule states that leaving mechanisms behind is a penalty....
Is the FIRST Q&A up?
i dont think so detaching a mechanism of your robot is against the rules
Loki1989
06-01-2007, 22:10
all I had to say was oh crap over and over again...
ChuckDickerson
06-01-2007, 22:11
I am still forming my opinion about whether or not I like the game but no matter what I know it is going to be fun to play and to watch.
Does anyone else get the feeling that the original plans for the game had each set of 3 vertical round diamond plate "feet" as a different color light as in a stop light? The top red, the middle yellow, and the bottom the good old green? This would have allowed teams to directly track the moving circle with the camera and more easily detect which spider leg they wanted to score during autonomous thus allowing the three alliance partners to coordinate their ring placement by switching autonomous modes just before the match. As it is now since they field crew will randomly rotate the rack prior to the start of the match it is very possible for alliance partners to lock on to the same green target and crash into each other while heading for the same spider leg. If each circle had been red, yellow, green like a stop light the alliance partners could say "Ok, you team A go for the low green one on the left, team B go for the high red one in the middle, and team C go for the middle yellow one on the right" or something like that. I was really expecting some sort of red, yellow, green or other multi-color light system this year after the multi-color stunt during the finals at the Championship last year. I don't know why but I get the feeling this may have been the original intent of the GDC but for some logistical reason they had to change the game and just go with round diamond plates. In any case, I sure wish they HAD gone with red, yellow, and green stop lights. It sure would have looked cool and added a whole new dimension to the game.
Uberbots
06-01-2007, 22:12
I do agree, however, that the ability to only see one side of the rack during the match is going to make things very hard for everyone, and I'm not quite sure I like it. =/
umm... R109 in th robot section states that you can have a wireless camera on your robot as long as it is cleared by FIRST engineers at the competition... so you can see beyond the rack.
Greg Perkins
06-01-2007, 22:14
Pavan,
I do not see how you are so quick to degrade FIRST if this past season was your rookie year. I wasn't around in '97, however, I've seen the games since 2000 and FIRST has yet to fully replicate the game 2 years in a row. YES, toroid terror had inner tubes and a center structure, but open your young eyes for a second and realize in '97 there was no camera, or fancy-schmancy sensors; not to mention the scoring system was COMPLETELY different. Yes, some teams may replicate other teams appendages, however I HIGHLY doubt FIRST made this game to be a copy-cat to toroid terror. I guess we'll see in 8 weeks at the regionals.
~Greg
Travis Hoffman
06-01-2007, 22:21
Non-functional = No broadcasting video to drivers to give them a "functional" advantage of an improved view on the far side of the rack.
This rule has been around for several years. While teams can't broadcast video direct to their operator stations, if approved, teams have had wireless camera feeds shown on the big viewscreen during matches (48 did this a few times in 2004) or have recorded the feed in their pits for future use.
8.3.11 Non-Functional Decoration Rules
Teams may add “non-functional” decorations to ROBOTS under the following conditions:
<R107> Decorations must be on the ROBOT at the time of final inspection, and must not cause the
ROBOT weight or size to exceed the limits specified in Rule <R07>.
<R108> Decorations must not affect the outcome of the match, and must be in the spirit of “Gracious
Professionalism.”
<R109> Any decorations that involve broadcasting a signal to/from the ROBOT, such as remote
cameras, must be cleared with FIRST Engineering prior to the event and tested for
communications interference at the venue. This is the one permissible exception to Rule
<R66>. Note that 900 MHz camera systems will not be approved, and are not permitted at
any time.
<R110>
Decorations may draw power from the 12v electrical system as long as they are powered
via a dedicated 20A or 30A circuit breaker and do not affect the operation of other control
system components.
Mister_Juggles
06-01-2007, 22:25
My first (<--pun, ha.) reaction when they unveiled the Rack, was something like "Noo! ahahaha!" This was because the crappy connection/laptop we had the stream running through decided to buffer at the exact moment the curtain began to fall. :ahh: But my first reaction after watching the whole thing was something like "Woah... wow.......woah....."
The game this year actually reminded me most of Triple Play (my rookie year), with the whole "putting an oddly shaped thing up on that thing," and the "get behind the line" at the end. I actually came up with a design for a very simple arm, using the arm from that year's robot with some pvc ducktaped to it. Stupid human loading thingy....ruined the whole thing. :(
This year will be very interesting to watch unfold. There will be some crazy designs (some of my friends decided they are going to try to use all 3 cameras that we've gotten so far, all on the same robot :eek: )
Dominicano0519
06-01-2007, 22:31
That's far too broad a statement to be making. Lots of six-foot robots climbed the ramp in 2006, which was far steeper than teams have to make theirs this year.
the limit was five feet last year
looneylin
06-01-2007, 22:35
i personally LOVE it. soooo much strategy. it's amazing!
n the game is simple, but u can do a lot with it. so i think it's good.
MikeDubreuil
06-01-2007, 22:35
My reaction...
Not as good as my favorite year (2000), but I like it. Apparently FIRST threw out that whole philosophy that the game should be easily scored/explained to your grandmother.
At first (heheh) i'm like... whoa thats wierd... then i started to like it... now i love it. :D
Just got back from our first meeting of the season and we have our robot design completely roughed out, drive sys, manipulator, and end effector. (whoo hoo we did it without pneumatics :cool: gotta love the weight savings)
ALSO I would like to congratulate FIRST on a great challenge design, I think that it does an awesome job of providing an attainable goal to all levels of teams, from rookie to your single and double digit teams. And, all scoring and defensive opportunities are about balanced for their weight in the overall score outcome of the match. Good job game design! :D
Good luck everybody... i'm sure in a few day's time i'll be posting like mad... think i'll give my fingers a rest for the moment... :yikes:
-Q
EDIT:
p.s. expect a very interesting scoring feature on our robot this year... and there might be two of them... hint hint...
Kims Robot
06-01-2007, 22:40
So I read through the whole thread and I keep seeing people going back on forth on "its torroid terror" or "its not torroid terror".
Now perhaps I'm not in the ranks of the great strategists of Wildstang or Simbotics, but I think part of the issue with this game is that the robots really could be exactly the same as old robots. For me, at this point, I like to be excited about designing something new, after we ship, I want to be excited about more detailed strategy. Yes I know there is more in it, but our first step is always to come up with the basic ways to do the game challenges...
You could take designs from a robot that could lift big balls, or from a torroid terror robot, and use it, exactly as it was. Therefor the challenge only lies in the strategy.... and the whole reason I love FIRST is for the engineering, not for the game (then I would have been a football coach)... as a systems engineer, we look at something a customer wants and if there is already something to do it, then we just buy it off the shelf (COTS). If there isnt, then we have to engineer something new. Its the smartest thing to do... if you know something works well, use it, don't reinvent the wheel.
That said, obviously FIRST is really about the students, so this will be a challenge for all my students. I look forward to seeing their ideas, but personally, this game doesn't excite me that much because I know I could just research old robots or use our torroid terror design, combined with our camera from 2005, and have a robot that easily scores.
I dunno... thats just my thoughts now. And my first thought was ARGH we have to buy new batteries again (just stocked up last year)! lol.
Dominicano0519
06-01-2007, 22:43
umm... R109 in th robot section states that you can have a wireless camera on your robot as long as it is cleared by FIRST engineers at the competition... so you can see beyond the rack.
<R109> Any decorations that involve broadcasting a signal to/from the ROBOT, such as remote cameras, must be cleared with FIRST Engineering prior to the event and tested for communications interference at the venue. This is the one permissible exception to Rule
this rule is in the
8.3.11 Non-Functional Decoration Rules
i dont know if they will allow you to use the camera as a way to see beyond the rack, that seems kind of functional to me.
Pavan Dave
06-01-2007, 22:46
Pavan,
I do not see how you are so quick to degrade FIRST if this past season was your rookie year. I wasn't around in '97, however, I've seen the games since 2000 and FIRST has yet to fully replicate the game 2 years in a row. YES, toroid terror had inner tubes and a center structure, but open your young eyes for a second and realize in '97 there was no camera, or fancy-schmancy sensors; not to mention the scoring system was COMPLETELY different. Yes, some teams may replicate other teams appendages, however I HIGHLY doubt FIRST made this game to be a copy-cat to toroid terror. I guess we'll see in 8 weeks at the regionals.
~Greg
Thanks for mentioning that. You may think I am quick to judge, and that is because I am, just because I think that they did not think hard enough on this one. Sure they may change certain rules and aspects but the point is different. To be honest this is how I first saw it.
In 97
* No Camera
* No Sensors
* Different Scoring
In 07
* Similar Structure
* Few obstacles for getting tube on the pipe.
Changes made were not enough to combat the simplicities with that technology has gifted us with. In my opinion I think the game would have been better if the Green Light was Different for each of the 4 Sides, and it changed every 15-30 seconds (after Autonomous). I also think that they could have stuck with the height rule from previous years so we would have to think outside the box and instead of changing our bot vertically maybe even let us change it horizontally for less weight. Also if the chains were a bit more sensitive and flimsy I would think of it as a greater challenge, but as it stands I think it is way too easy for rate technology has evolved in 10 years.
Pavan.
WingsOTWorld
06-01-2007, 22:48
Reaction you ask? My reaction... "Interesting....very very interesting...i would have preferred a water event...but heres to next year...and this year should be mighty fun."
artdutra04
06-01-2007, 22:52
the part where the robot must be off the ground makes team collaboration very useful. I'm going to be looking out for the triplets this year. (imagine 3 robots stacking on top of each other)There are not going to be any Niagara FIRST triplets this year. They are still going to collaborate together, but they are not going to have identical robots. Karthik posted this here (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=542358&postcount=98). :)
Does anyone have a copy of the game video yet? maybe someone recorded it... or a link to where it is on the site?http://robotics.arc.nasa.gov/events/2007_kickoff.php
I'm very sorry to say this but although many people will design many new robots. The winning teams will do research with previous games that had similar concepts etc. and maybe pick and choose wisely from old robots and than make their own of those ideas. I do not think that this game is challenging because of this reason. Last year for instance we had not had a game similar to this but this year this is basically a FIRST KICK OFF '9? Version 2.This can happen for nearly any game. Last year teams around from 2000-2002 could look back at their ball gathering systems to use similar ideas for picking up Poof balls. 2005 unique only in manipulator design, otherwise teams could go back at look at previous arm and elevator designs. In 2004, hanging on the bar was new (unless you count the really short bar in 2000), but manipulating big balls could use the same designs as 2001.
I think this will be a higher scoring game with the opportunity to realistically score 8 tubes in one row for 256 points, I will bet that it will happen at least once.I personally believe 256 point rows will occur about as frequently this year as having all goals capped in 2005 or having four hanging robots in 2004. It will happen, probably about once or twice per competition, but it sure should be exciting!
Don't count on high scores. I think defense is being underestimated. A simple KOP robot could cause a sophisticated robot a lot of trouble. A well build defensive robot could cause havoc for an entire alliance.This year there are 24 places to score inner tubes. Last year, the majority of defense played was on teams trying to shoot into a single goal. It will be much harder to block all eight vertical columns at once, and with the huge rack in the center of the field it will prevent teams from barreling across the field to push you out of the way.
Honestly, it is not the fact that they changed a FEW concepts of the game. It is still the same game to a degree. No matter what you do you are still putting tubes on poles. The fact of the matter is that they had around seven months to develop a challenging UNIQUE game yet they chose to modify an old one. That is my "beef" with FIRST. Is the 2004 game FIRST Frenzy just a reiteration of the 2001 Diabolical Dynamics game, where robots scored small balls into mobile goals, and could cap them with large 30" balls? No. Is the 2007 game Rack 'n Roll just a reiteration of the 1997 game where teams inner tubes onto a rack in the center of the field? No.
You will not see many unique games very often. Balls (of some type) are used on average ever other year. So at some point, you're bound to reuse some game elements like mobile goals, ramps, steps, hanging bars, playing field parts, etc. But does it really matter? 1997 was 10 years ago. If you were a freshman on a team in 1997, you would have graduated high school in 2000, graduated with a 4 yr. bachelor's degree in 2004, and by now you might be considering marriage, buying a house, and/or settling down into your life.
If you think about games on the term of a high school 'generation', 10 years is a long time, and there are not that many people in the program today who were involved with FIRST in 1997.
I'm willing to bet there's going to be a lot of tipping...more so than in previous years. If you have a 6 ft bot going to try to hang a Ringer from the top level of spider legs, and a little 4 ft bot trying to play defense...gravity will eventually take its course. Granted with no wedges and the bumper zone in effect it won't be ideal conditions for tipping (not that tipping is ever ideal) but still...expect tipping to occur.Think about 2005, the year of nine-pound tetras atop huge arms and elevators as high as 12-14 feet above the ground. This year, you won't have to go much above 9 feet with a playing field object that weighs virtually nothing when compared to a tetra.
Just because games involve high objects does not necessarily mean there will be a lot of tipping. (Who would have thought that 2006, the year of no extensions above 5 feet, would be the year of massive tipping - even more so that 2004 or 2005?)
umm... R109 in th robot section states that you can have a wireless camera on your robot as long as it is cleared by FIRST engineers at the competition... so you can see beyond the rack.
Similar to how the scoring screen has been shown on a LCD/Plasma TV near the drivers station of the team who cannot see it, I think FIRST may do something like broadcast a feed of the opposite side of the field for your use. It would be very nice, but I can't say I see it happening...but this is FIRST...so you never know what they will do!
Ian Curtis
06-01-2007, 22:54
Thanks for mentioning that. You may think I am quick to judge, and that is because I am, just because I think that they did not think hard enough on this one. Sure they may change certain rules and aspects but the point is different. To be honest this is how I first saw it.
In 97
* No Camera
* No Sensors
* Different Scoring
In 07
* Similar Structure
* Few obstacles for getting tube on the pipe.
Changes made were not enough to combat the simplicities with that technology has gifted us with. In my opinion I think the game would have been better if the Green Light was Different for each of the 4 Sides, and it changed every 15-30 seconds (after Autonomous). I also think that they could have stuck with the height rule from previous years so we would have to think outside the box and instead of changing our bot vertically maybe even let us change it horizontally for less weight. Also if the chains were a bit more sensitive and flimsy I would think of it as a greater challenge, but as it stands I think it is way too easy for rate technology has evolved in 10 years.
I'm no Car Nack but if 1/10 of the teams at any regional can place a keeper with 75% reliability, I'd eat my scouting notebook. You have a relatively small target which must be hit with a high degree of accuracy, on which you must really completely (or nearly completely) on your camera.
Lil' Lavery
06-01-2007, 23:01
Non-functional = No broadcasting video to drivers to give them a "functional" advantage of an improved view on the far side of the rack.
This rule has been around for several years. While teams can't broadcast video direct to their operator stations, if approved, teams have had wireless camera feeds shown on the big viewscreen during matches (48 did this a few times in 2004) or have recorded the feed in their pits for future use.
That view on the big screen can certainly help a driver
So I read through the whole thread and I keep seeing people going back on forth on "its torroid terror" or "its not torroid terror".
Now perhaps I'm not in the ranks of the great strategists of Wildstang or Simbotics, but I think part of the issue with this game is that the robots really could be exactly the same as old robots. For me, at this point, I like to be excited about designing something new, after we ship, I want to be excited about more detailed strategy. Yes I know there is more in it, but our first step is always to come up with the basic ways to do the game challenges...
You could take designs from a robot that could lift big balls, or from a torroid terror robot, and use it, exactly as it was. Therefor the challenge only lies in the strategy.... and the whole reason I love FIRST is for the engineering, not for the game (then I would have been a football coach)... as a systems engineer, we look at something a customer wants and if there is already something to do it, then we just buy it off the shelf (COTS). If there isnt, then we have to engineer something new. Its the smartest thing to do... if you know something works well, use it, don't reinvent the wheel.
That said, obviously FIRST is really about the students, so this will be a challenge for all my students. I look forward to seeing their ideas, but personally, this game doesn't excite me that much because I know I could just research old robots or use our torroid terror design, combined with our camera from 2005, and have a robot that easily scores.
Kim, I'm going to have to disagree. I've already mentioned how a majority of teams relied heavily on their human play in 97, and how that will dramatically alter robot manipulator designs, so I'll demonstrate how other features will change it this year. The primary physical differences are the spiders, specifically their ability to move. In 1997 the tower could freely rotate in place, but in 2007 the spiders have the ability for slight rotation, rocking, shaking, and elevation changes. At the top level, the effect is not terribly dramatic, but in the middle, and specifically in the lowest spider, it can be problematic. Additionally, the fact that the "Chute" is vertical is going to cause all sorts of issues with the acquisition of inner tubes (at least when acquiring them directly from the HP), something that I don't think ANY 1997 robot could have done. In 1997, teams could place tubes horizontally on the top of the tower (provided space remained), which allowed for manipulators that could only control tubes horizontally, but in this game, all the tubes must be manipulated vertically (or close to it).
There are also additional engineering challenges presented by the other aspects of the game. No game have essentially forced this much interaction between alliance partners since 2001. The bonus points will be a very interesting and dramatic ending to the matches this year, requiring a great deal of engineering though and cooperation and collaboration between alliance partners to figure out how to go about it. There are limitless options as to how a team may attempt to try and elevate robots.
If you're still not satisfied, you can always pioneer in the other aspects of the robot, namely the drive and control aspects. FIRST is providing us with more power and chances to pioneer in robot design than they ever have before. Two more pneumatic tanks, more motors, more KoP features, more sensors etc. will all allow for more development in the robot.
And finally, strategy is important in Systems Engineering. As a Systems Engineer, you would have to try and find the BEST solution to a problem, not just a solution. While adopting a 1997 design may be a solution, finding the best would be investigating the game strategy and coming up with an ideal design to fit the solution that 1511 (or any team) feels best fits the 2007 game.
Elgin Clock
06-01-2007, 23:02
In 07
* Few obstacles for getting tube on the pipe.
Pavan.
:ahh:
I think you will end up eating those words my friend. :)
The Spider Legs are going to be moving all over the place and a lot of us have already discovered there is an easy way and a hard way to load the whole rack up just by putting some on and trying to take some off and putting them on in the same places.
I won't give away that secret just yet, but I'm sure you will learn if and when you build a rack assembly and have at least 4 tubes.
Bottom line, it's not as easy as you think and will be hard in operator controlled periods and then even harder by a huge factor in autonomous.
(And this is a non-watered down opinion from a member of a team who sucessfully capped a vision tetra on a STATIONARY goal in autonomous mode in 2005.)
You think that was hard to attempt and ultimately accomplish??
Try working with something that is going to be constantly changing direction and wiggling all over the place!!
:ahh: :ahh: :ahh:
Two words: Wildstang 2001
and 2003.
Pavan Dave
06-01-2007, 23:06
:ahh:
I think you will end up eating those words my friend. :)
Trust me, you will see within a week from this post what I am talking about. I will already link you to a picture of a past bot which only needs a few Modifications before it is ready for this game (after they build a new one).
**************************** DISCLAIMER******************************
NO I am not accusing them of cheating. I am saying that their robot could be used if they re-made it and modified it to the rules. I am talking from the design point of view that if you design a similar robot that it is less effort. I am not implying anything, but rather proving my point that within 10 hours of the animation video that 10+ teams from the past have pulled out their old robots to try this, (them being one of them), and could possibly with some tweaks make a new one for competition this year.
NO CHEATING IMPLIED.
************************************************** *****************
If this team wishes that I take down this picture, than I will. Until than I am just proving my point with picture evidence that ROBOT DESIGN for this competition was completed without much effort rather a stroll down memory lane.
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/img/0c8/0c85ce1f01c643d097f9c897ceeb7566_l.jpg
Pavan.
For some reason I am unable to communicate today so I apologize if anyone finds this post disturbing or offensive.
MissInformation
06-01-2007, 23:13
Trust me, you will see within a week from this post what I am talking about. I will already link you to a picture of a past bot which only needs a few Modifications before it is ready for this game (IF AND ONLY IF after they build a new one).
Pavan.
You are practically accusing team 254 of cheating, and I don't know if you mean to or not but it's not very nice to even imply it. Especially since you are representing your team on CD, whether your know it or not.
lukevanoort
06-01-2007, 23:14
This year there are 24 places to score inner tubes. Last year, the majority of defense played was on teams trying to shoot into a single goal. It will be much harder to block all eight vertical columns at once, and with the huge rack in the center of the field it will prevent teams from barreling across the field to push you out of the way.
This is true for a zone defence, but not necessarily for a man-to-man style one. If you have grippy wheels like 306 and 217 have or high traction, reliable treads like 180 and 753 I'm pretty confident that you could effectively remove two robots from the equation or at least heavily reduce their capability to score. Another effective defensive maneuver might just be shaking the spiders, which is pretty easy. That said, we're probably going to abandon our defensive tradition this year in favor of offence. Or, at least focus on offence and if a little defensive capability finds its way in, hey, thats all the better.
|20807 61|2|_
06-01-2007, 23:14
All i can say is that someone is going to get hurt with a mobile 24 armed cage :yikes: :) !! Personally i love it but it does seem like just a very large tic-tac-toe board.
artdutra04
06-01-2007, 23:17
// Sorry about the double post, but I wanted to keep all my replies to previous posts and my game opinions separate.
I swear, the first thought that popped into my head after I saw them release the playing field at the Manchester, NH Kickoff was "where's the power source for the lights?". Then again, maybe I think too much about technical details... :yikes:
Then about four seconds later I decided I liked the game. It would be fast-paced, fun to drive and compete in, and very fun to watch, film, and photograph. I liked the inner tubes, the introduction of nice strategy on where to place tubes, the huge structure in the middle of the field. (Actually, I think I was more overjoyed at being able to use arms and elevators again more than anything else!)
Back in September, something went off in my head that told me 2007 was going to be a great year. And so it has become! :D
Pavan Dave
06-01-2007, 23:19
You are practically accusing team 254 of cheating, and I don't know if you mean to or not but it's not very nice to even imply it. Especially since you are representing your team on CD, whether your know it or not.
NO I am not accusing them of cheating. I am saying that their robot could be used if they re-made it and modified it to the rules. I am talking from the design point of view that if you design a similar robot that it is less effort. I am not implying anything, but rather proving my point that within 10 hours of the animation video that 10+ teams from the past have pulled out their old robots to try this, (them being one of them), and could possibly with some tweaks make a new one for competition this year.
NO CHEATING IMPLIED.
Pavan.
Graham Donaldson
06-01-2007, 23:19
Okay... my like-dislike of the game: none, at the present. I'm going to wait and see.The field does look very bare, but I think once a few tubes fall or what have you, that could cause some major obstructions. On that note, a team fully extended, going for and 8-foot-tall goal, that tips WILL be a major obstruction. I'll be excited to see how that plays out. I'm disappointed with the human player role- seems slightly useless to me. I like the new end-of-match bonus. Gives a whole lot of questions and strategizing to the game. I also think that a large degree of adaptability, on the fly changes and strategical freedom will be ESSENTIAL to any team that wishes to suceed. When I say adaptability, I saw this idea in last year's game, and it made sense then and it makes sense now: removable, interchangeable scoring structures. Say a team makes a base drive train that weighs x pounds. Depending on the strategy they have decided upon, with their alliance, based on the opposing alliance, they swap out their mechanism to fit the game. They have something that adds up to a total of four feet and 120 pounds, 5 and 110, 6 and 100. With the variability of the matches, I predict having one strategy that you do every time will not give you a successful robot. I'll use 25 as a guinea pig here. They had a very well-built, successful robot last year, and a strategy they could execute with a high degree of success every match. We tried to stop them, and still couldn't do it sometimes. That won't work. Depending on the strategy, and the fact that once even a ringer has been placed, the only way to negate it is with a spoiler, if one ringer is hung out of place, your strategy could go out the window. And since I'm really tired, I'll begin to wrap up my speech. Now for my reactions to other's posts.
My feeling toward this game, interesting. It doesn't seem to be a high scoring game, with 90 being the average I think. The strategy will be interesting as well. Can two teams carry a RINGER score while one just lifts and plays D, will the vision system be as integral of a part this year, will Human or floor be the main scoring mode, one last thing you cant own every goal which makes it interesting.
May I ask how you believe (and I'm not trying to be critical here) how a human player will score? I think it'll be pretty hard, even if you can still throw them over [side note]one of our members suggested we find someone really good at throwing frisbees and put them up on stilts. They never said anything about how tall the human players could be...:D)
I'm thinking this game will be a crowd pleaser.
Easy to understand, wonderfully visual. Drama, excitement, collaboration oh my!
I think this will be a great year to invite folks to come see FIRST in action and share in the fun - the teams will be rocking. Go GDC!
I graciously disagree. I think the game may be hard to understand at first, and with the possible mess of inner tubes, never mind not being able to see half of the scoring structure, this game could be not as crowd-intense as last year. C'mon, who doesn't like shooting poof balls that could fly into the crowd???
I'm thinking this is going to be a test of my reaction time. And I'm thinking it would also test a driver's reaction time to try the same feat using a robot. I'm thinking that the CMU camera will only be able to tell the robot the time-average location of the swinging Spider Arm Plates.
I'm thinking that Rack scoring will be hard.
I'm no Car Nack but if 1/10 of the teams at any regional can place a keeper with 75% reliability, I'd eat my scouting notebook. You have a relatively small target which must be hit with a high degree of accuracy, on which you must really completely (or nearly completely) on your camera.
That's one of my questions (I'm not a programmer). Could the CMU cam be used to track the diamondplate circles? Give it an autonomous function to lock on to the nearest circle? And how would that be useful...I honestly haven't worked it out yet. My other idea was a range sensor placed strategically so that when the plate moved in front of it, if the function was activated, the arm would autonomously move out and put the tube on- ???
...I understand the camera can now (supposedly) track multiple targets (green lights) but I don't think that means it can track the diamond plate circles can it? What I can't figure out is if the camera system can only help you find the relatively stationary green light(s) how is it supposed to be able to track the moving spiders at all and get your ring delivery mechanism within +/- 1.5" of being on target... Since the rule apparently do not allow you to hold the spider steady to allow easier placement of the rings I believe scoring the rings might be more difficult than first glance.
Dan Petrovic
06-01-2007, 23:20
Trust me, you will see within a week from this post what I am talking about. I will already link you to a picture of a past bot which only needs a few Modifications before it is ready for this game (IF AND ONLY IF after they build a new one).
Pavan.
I know exactly what you mean. We are in the same situation. 2005 robot that needs few modifications before it can compete in this game.
But there are some things that we weren't satisfied with in 2005, so we'd choose not to make the same exact design as then.
Maybe 254's 2004 robot had some features that didn't exactly satisfy what they were looking for.
I don't get why you are complaining so much. It's not going to change the game, and it's not going to change our opinions so much.
If you don't like it, why are you involving yourself in it so much more than you have to?
Pavan Dave
06-01-2007, 23:24
I know exactly what you mean. We are in the same situation. 2005 robot that needs few modifications before it can compete in this game.
But there are some things that we weren't satisfied with in 2005, so we'd choose not to make the same exact design as then.
Maybe 254's 2004 robot had some features that didn't exactly satisfy what they were looking for.
I don't get why you are complaining so much. It's not going to change the game, and it's not going to change our opinions so much.
If you don't like it, why are you involving yourself in it so much more than you have to?
That is exactly what I am saying.
ALTHOUGH some teams could rebuild a bot from previous years they would rather just improve on the stuff they didn't like while they were bringing their new creation to life. Although this idea is not in the first spirit it is not breaking rules either. It is not said that I can not use a similar robot design in this competition.
Pavan.
JESTER357
06-01-2007, 23:27
i think this is going to be the most intense and fun game. FIRST really did an amazing job this year and topped last year. How do they keep it so much fun. lol
Ericgehrken
06-01-2007, 23:28
At first I knew this was going to be a complicated game and after a strategy meeting I understand it better and it still is complicated so I now know I'm not insane. I think it will be fast-paced and exciting just like any good sport. This is what Dean wants FRC to display with gracious professionalism. How American is an exciting sport? Nice game, great work Game Design Committee.
Elgin Clock
06-01-2007, 23:28
Apparently FIRST threw out that whole philosophy that the game should be easily scored/explained to your grandmother.
As long as your actions on and off the field still make your Grandma proud, we'll keep scoring calculations up to awesome software.
(And yes, it IS awesome this year. So simple to use.)
We talked with the guy at the scoring software table for about 15 minutes or more up in Manchester and learned so much about the game from him. It's always good to have an insiders view on stuff.
(IF AND ONLY IF after they build a new one).
Pavan.
You are practically accusing team 254 of cheating, and I don't know if you mean to or not but it's not very nice to even imply it. Especially since you are representing your team on CD, whether your know it or not.
Yeah.. that's not very nice. :(
All i can say is that someone is going to get hurt with a mobile 24 armed cage :yikes: :) !! Personally i love it but it does seem like just a very large tic-tac-toe board.
It's not that mobile. It may move (very slightly) during competition but it's not on wheels or anything but the spider legs will whip around a lot so there IS a safety concern that's for sure.
Think the middle platform in 2004. heavy as all heck, and it only moved when someone rammed it full speed and it was mere inches... if ever over 2" in any direction on the floor.
I swear, the first thought that popped into my head after I saw them release the playing field at the Manchester, NH Kickoff was "where's the power source for the lights?". Then again, maybe I think too much about technical details... :yikes:
I thought that too.. and then first thought a battery was mounted in the diamond plate covered box above everything but then asked "How would you change that out?" "How the heck are you going to climb this rack safely?? :ahh:
And then my focus saw the cable coming down and realized it was hardwired.
(Made me feel much better about not having a target light get dimmer as the day went on. lol)
Pavan Dave
06-01-2007, 23:32
Quote:Originally Posted by Pavan
(IF AND ONLY IF after they build a new one).
Pavan.
Quote:Originally Posted by MissInformation
You are practically accusing team 254 of cheating, and I don't know if you mean to or not but it's not very nice to even imply it. Especially since you are representing your team on CD, whether your know it or not.
Yeah.. that's not very nice.
I didn't mean it like that. I will edit it sorry. I meant that if they wanted to use the robot for competition they would have to build another one.
Pavan.
Lil' Lavery
06-01-2007, 23:38
On the topic of the autonomous scoring and the CMU Cam:
I don't believe that the CMU cam can track diamond plate (and even if it could, how would it differentiate the circles from the rest of the rack, alliance stations, and even potentially other robots). The lights serve as a reference to where the goal and approximate location of the spider legs are, but for more specific targeting, you will probably have to use additional sensors to identify the exact location of the legs.
Travis Hoffman
06-01-2007, 23:40
and 2003.
Those were robot-unfriendly ramps in 2003.
Travis Hoffman
06-01-2007, 23:42
That view on the big screen can certainly help a driver
....if they are actually showing your robot at the time you're trying to score on the opposite side of the field....
JaneYoung
06-01-2007, 23:45
Regarding our posts, we might just want to take a minute here and breathe.
Let's take some time to study the game challenge and the manual and then post.
Whether we realize it consciously or not, we have all been on a huge build up for this game reveal and now it is here and oh, a surprise, unexpected, not what I was thinking, not what I wanted - kind of thoughts can enter in, esp. when we are already sleep deprived from this week.
I would also like to suggest that 2nd year team members are definitely not rookies and have been through most of the cycle, however 2nd year team members haven't been through the 2nd game challenge and balancing their thoughts and feelings with that experience. It might be wise to discuss some of these feelings and thoughts with our teams and with individuals via PM but, learning and growing together on CD is fine with me as long as we keep respect in the center of the growth and communication, all of us.
Trusting/learning to trust the GDC is a part of being a participant in FIRST.
Just some thoughts.
Jane
Goldberg204
06-01-2007, 23:47
Im kind of confused, they said the higher the robot, the bigger the bonus, with a few designs I came up with, our robot would be able to lift robots a few feet into the air, doesn't safety come into factor here? Also, will we be allowed to touch the spiders intentionally, also, can we just have a robot drive to the other side, expand, and drop a big black curtain down so the other team cant see?!:ahh:
Tetraman
06-01-2007, 23:52
and 2003.
I'd rather not remember anything from 2003.
On topic: I guess the game has warmed up to me because of the possible game play, but I still don't like the design. Something seems missing to make me feel wow-ed.
Tetraman
06-01-2007, 23:55
can we just have a robot drive to the other side, expand, and drop a big black curtain down so the other team cant see?!:ahh:
We had that idea Stack Attack year, we even called it the Iron Curtain. But when we contacted FIRST about it, they said it was against Gracious Professionalism and strongly suggested we didn't make it.
keenanmolner
07-01-2007, 00:08
This years challenge will be really intresting to watch. especialy the robot stacking. you have only 15 seconds to do it in. you can earn penelties really easly. why does the structure have to move???
Goldberg204
07-01-2007, 00:10
This years challenge will be really intresting to watch. especialy the robot stacking. you have only 15 seconds to do it in. you can earn penelties really easly. why does the structure have to move???
to make us mad :)
Pavan Dave
07-01-2007, 00:10
This years challenge will be really intresting to watch. especialy the robot stacking. you have only 15 seconds to do it in. you can earn penelties really easly. why does the structure have to move???
So it is a bit more challenging and you have to use your brains and think outside of the box. Otherwise FIRST would be no fun :p !
Pavan.
It is absolutely mind blowing how dynamically the strategies are going to change.
If you have a 6 ringer row worth 64 points and the opponent puts a spoiler, then you immediately will drop everything you are doing and try to remove it. Otherwise, you lose 32 points!
This competition should be great, and the autonomous should be really interesting to watch with the random starting position of the center goal. :D
Please understand I have a great deal of respect for how difficult it must be to make a new and challenging game every year and that I know no game will please everybody.
With that said I will also say I think this game did an absolutely terrible job considering several importaint needs (mainly those of rookie and low-budget teams.)
Many previous games have had real time scoring systems which for whatever reason do not have a great history of working. I think that a game like this (where human drivers and players won't be able to even clearly see nearly half the scoring zone and there is so much counting) simply isn't reasonable without an absolutely bulletproof real-time scoring system. Teams often miscounted last year when all they were doing was counting balls through a hoop...how are we going to keep track of rows in two dimensions...plus spoilers? What a mess.
I think the tubes will pop and people will get spider legs in the face.
I think we will see a decent-sized population of rookie teams and low-budget teams get to competition only to realize the model they were practicing scoring on is not an realistic representation of the one on the field. Teams are going to need to build the entire scoring structure to simulate the balance and momentum of the swinging parts. That is no small structure and many teams do not have the storage space to keep such an object together. If they had made the object smaller and put more of them on the field it would have been more reasonable.
I can't believe we are still using that green light. I think that is simply inviting old teams to dust off their code for tracking and make a new autonomous mode. At least vary the sensor...autonomous is hard enough for rookie teams without having all the older teams already know the sensor.
I am worried that some hard feelings may occur when headstrong drivers cause uninvited robots attempt to climb on other robots and things break. I suppose that is not FIRST's concern but it is still a potential problem.
I think this is not a crowd friendly game. Yes it is "shiny" but the general crowd of people who watch competitive robotics are either generally the sort of people who like to know what is going on or friends/family of people competing. Both groups care about the score and I do not think this will be an easy game for an audience to score in real-time.
With all that said this is still the game we are playing and I wish you all the best of luck.
Greg Perkins
07-01-2007, 01:17
That is exactly what I am saying.
ALTHOUGH some teams could rebuild a bot from previous years they would rather just improve on the stuff they didn't like while they were bringing their new creation to life. Although this idea is not in the first spirit it is not breaking rules either. It is not said that I can not use a similar robot design in this competition.[/SIZE]
Pavan.
SO?
Again; Pavan, I'm going to have to interject once more. In the REAL-WORLD when you're involved with a project (similar to FIRST) you'll QUICKLY come to the realization of design iteration and how much easier (to a degree) to improve a design rather than start from scratch. 254, 60, and 968 are some of the teams that I can put my finger on who've used that chassis desgin for the past 2 seasons (all while being legal). Is this wrong? Absolutley not, it's merely a smart way to manage you're resources; resources I.E.- money, time, and labor.
Why spend 200+ hours desiging a new frame, one thats untested and unproven. When all that needs to be done is to double-click a few times on the computer and bam-bam a print comes out. It's such a smart way to run effiecently, I'm suprised more teams don't lean on this idea more often (I understand it may start to get "boring" after a while, but hey, boredom=cheap).
This is no way anti-GP or against FIRST's code of ethics, it's merely a smart business strategy that happens everyday in the world. Please I don't really see your point in the arguement (if you're even trying to insinuate an arguement, it's got no credibility), are you trying to make us all believe that it's not FAIR to reuse ideas or designs? Or are you just trying to create attention, whatever the case may be, I'm done arguing about it. I don't know 'bout the rest of us, but this is pretty well beaten down...move on allready.
~Greg
Oh may!!! This year is going to be amazing!
Is everyone as excited about this game as I am?
Noah Kleinberg
07-01-2007, 01:20
Please understand I have a great deal of respect for how difficult it must be to make a new and challenging game every year and that I know no game will please everybody.
With that said I will also say I think this game did an absolutely terrible job considering several importaint needs (mainly those of rookie and low-budget teams.)
Many previous games have had real time scoring systems which for whatever reason do not have a great history of working. I think that a game like this (where human drivers and players won't be able to even clearly see nearly half the scoring zone and there is so much counting) simply isn't reasonable without an absolutely bulletproof real-time scoring system. Teams often miscounted last year when all they were doing was counting balls through a hoop...how are we going to keep track of rows in two dimensions...plus spoilers? What a mess.
I think the tubes will pop and people will get spider legs in the face.
I think we will see a decent-sized population of rookie teams and low-budget teams get to competition only to realize the model they were practicing scoring on is not an realistic representation of the one on the field. Teams are going to need to build the entire scoring structure to simulate the balance and momentum of the swinging parts. That is no small structure and many teams do not have the storage space to keep such an object together. If they had made the object smaller and put more of them on the field it would have been more reasonable.
I can't believe we are still using that green light. I think that is simply inviting old teams to dust off their code for tracking and make a new autonomous mode. At least vary the sensor...autonomous is hard enough for rookie teams without having all the older teams already know the sensor.
I am worried that some hard feelings may occur when headstrong drivers cause uninvited robots attempt to climb on other robots and things break. I suppose that is not FIRST's concern but it is still a potential problem.
I think this is not a crowd friendly game. Yes it is "shiny" but the general crowd of people who watch competitive robotics are either generally the sort of people who like to know what is going on or friends/family of people competing. Both groups care about the score and I do not think this will be an easy game for an audience to score in real-time.
With all that said this is still the game we are playing and I wish you all the best of luck.
Another concern with the rack is that it's expensive to build. Somewhere on chiefdelphi someone said that the wooden version of it costs around $500 to build, and it's still not going to be the same as the competition model. Even if you have the money and space for a rack, your next problem is time, especially on smaller teams. Rookies are going to have a pretty hard time this year I feel...
Lil' Lavery
07-01-2007, 01:27
Please understand I have a great deal of respect for how difficult it must be to make a new and challenging game every year and that I know no game will please everybody.
With that said I will also say I think this game did an absolutely terrible job considering several importaint needs (mainly those of rookie and low-budget teams.)
Many previous games have had real time scoring systems which for whatever reason do not have a great history of working. I think that a game like this (where human drivers and players won't be able to even clearly see nearly half the scoring zone and there is so much counting) simply isn't reasonable without an absolutely bulletproof real-time scoring system. Teams often miscounted last year when all they were doing was counting balls through a hoop...how are we going to keep track of rows in two dimensions...plus spoilers? What a mess.
It's still better than last year, when the scoring system went down (and even often when it was up) there was little indicator of the exact score as the game pieces were recycled back into play. After seeing pictures taken from the alliance stations in New Hampshire, it isn't quite as hard to see the other side as one might imagine.
I think the tubes will pop and people will get spider legs in the face.
I people got shot with poof balls, tetras broke, balls popped, and just about all that stuff before too...
I can't believe we are still using that green light. I think that is simply inviting old teams to dust off their code for tracking and make a new autonomous mode. At least vary the sensor...autonomous is hard enough for rookie teams without having all the older teams already know the sensor.
How would rookies learn to program better if older teams had to learn a new sensor? That makes no sense to me. If anything, it's easier on the rookies, because mentoring teams can help them with far more expertise than if they were learning new technology as well.
I am worried that some hard feelings may occur when headstrong drivers cause uninvited robots attempt to climb on other robots and things break. I suppose that is not FIRST's concern but it is still a potential problem.
It's no worse than defense in a game like last years (especially considering the autonomous interaction last year). Also consider, for "climbing" on other robots, it is most likely going to be essential they have some device to help you get atop of them, so it is going to have to be consentual.
Tetraman
07-01-2007, 01:43
With that said I will also say I think this game did an absolutely terrible job considering several importaint needs (mainly those of rookie and low-budget teams.)
I think you underestimate what rookie teams and low budget teams can produce. Rookie teams can be powerful for the reason they don't have background knowledge and can work with a greater number of possibilities than teams who know what works and what doesn't.
My team I'm mentoring is a low budget team. It's different from 174 which had money to spend as needed. I actually found it slightly easier to design with simple materials and cheap design than get into lots of mechanisms.
George A.
07-01-2007, 01:51
This years challenge will be really intresting to watch. especialy the robot stacking. you have only 15 seconds to do it in. you can earn penelties really easly. why does the structure have to move???
Correct me if I'm wrong...but I've read and reread Section 7 of the game manual and I haven't found where it sayd you only have 15 seconds to stack robots. It says that for the final 15 seconds a robot can't be in an opposing home zone.
No where does it say, that I can find, that teams may only stack robots during the final 15 seconds.
If someone can clarify this I'd appreciate it.
The rule I'm referencing is:
"<G56> ROBOTS score bonus points at the end of the match if they are entirely in their HOME ZONE, not in contact with any element of the field (carpet, allaince station, goal etc.) and the lowest point of the ROBOT is higher than 4 inches and/or 10 (although I think that's a typo) inches above the carpeted field surface. The number of bonus points an ALLAINCE recieves is bases on the total number of ROBOTS satisfying these conditions. Each ALLAINCE ROBOT entirely in their HOME ZONE at the end of the match is eligible to recieve the following bonus points."
Kamikaze
07-01-2007, 01:57
An observation about game complaints: Speaking as a 4th-year FRC programmer, I would say that the differences between the competence of programming teams will be more related to the programming skill, enthusiasm, and awareness of good development practice of the team members more than a particular familiarity with a specific component.
So I don't think the arguments about cameras being easier for veterans that have been presented in this thread hold much water. Teams with quality robot code will have good programming as long as they can retain their skilled members and good practices (e.g. use revision control, sub-divide tasks, test at every step, etc.). The best way to improve your programming team is by having members become passionate about computer science in their own time and investing some effort to go read a few books and papers (and you certainly can't level that out with rules).
I'm not a big fan of the CMUCam's capabilities either. However, it's certainly a relevant technology for us roboticians. Guess what Stanford used on their winning DARPA autonomous vehicle? A camera augmented with laser range finders. This stuff will be important, even though we won't get to play with bayesian inference engines on our dinky PICs.
Finally, perhaps it's valuable to see the wide range of opinions that exist about this year's game, but I think some people are being unnecessarily negative in this thread ("hate" is a strong word and all that). Maybe we should reserve some judgement on whether the game design was good or bad until we actually get some robots built and see some competition. Sorry for adding another rant to this thread (meta-rant though). :p
Ryan Dognaux
07-01-2007, 02:51
My pre-build / competition reaction to the game: I like it. 2 thumbs up game design committee, you created a game that's not only challenging but allows for multiple strategies and styles of play, and continues to build on using the camera while making autonomous mode more important this year more than ever as well.
This is going to be one interesting year.
I'm on mechanical team and all I want to say is...
I Want Some Obstacles On The Field!
Seriously, they could have placed a 4 by 4 piece of pine on the gound at the very least. Imagine how much harder THAT would have been to navigate. Imagine the difficulty in accounting for unpredictable obstacles that block your robot while trying to track an unpredictably moving light.
Actually, I can imagine what 2008 will be like... ;)
darkember
07-01-2007, 09:16
you know what will be hard, if a robot is nearly six feet tall and it trys to climb a ramb onto another robot. The robot will probably fall over.
Im sorry for this earlier comment.:( i didnt mean to cause so much arguing.
Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery
It's still better than last year, when the scoring system went down (and even often when it was up) there was little indicator of the exact score as the game pieces were recycled back into play. After seeing pictures taken from the alliance stations in New Hampshire, it isn't quite as hard to see the other side as one might imagine.
It is unquestionably better than last year but last year was not very good and so that is not a particularly narrow category. I'd rather talk in terms of "good enough" and "not good enough" and I am afraid this may eventually fall into the latter.
Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery
I people got shot with poof balls, tetras broke, balls popped, and just about all that stuff before too...
I was thinking on the order of magnitude of stack attack bins...basically enough that it could possibly be a reasonably sized additional cost to running a regional. Also it I assume it is probably more difficult by a significant margin to injure yourself with a poof ball than a large chunk of swinging metal.
Originally Posted by Noah Kleinberg
Another concern with the rack is that it's expensive to build. Somewhere on chiefdelphi someone said that the wooden version of it costs around $500 to build, and it's still not going to be the same as the competition model. Even if you have the money and space for a rack, your next problem is time, especially on smaller teams. Rookies are going to have a pretty hard time this year I feel...
Wow that is even worse than I had imagined! Can anybody confirm the source/provide a link?
Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery
How would rookies learn to program better if older teams had to learn a new sensor? That makes no sense to me. If anything, it's easier on the rookies, because mentoring teams can help them with far more expertise than if they were learning new technology as well.
The the benefit that somebody can teach you the system is small compared to the advantage the teaching team has. Many teams are kind and generous to all in need this is true but I do not think FIRST should be banking on the good will of the teams in the league to ensure a level playing field. I think the game design itself should cause a level playing field. I think things would be a lot more even if every team was struggling to learn the new sensor.
That said I can respect the fact that FIRST has perfected the use of the camera and they know this one works. There is a lot to be said for having working parts. If somebody can show me that the lack of resources to test and debug new sensors is why we do not have new sensors I will respect that. I'll also gladly offer to help test and debug new sensors myself.
Originally Posted by Tetraman
I think you underestimate what rookie teams and low budget teams can produce. Rookie teams can be powerful for the reason they don't have background knowledge and can work with a greater number of possibilities than teams who know what works and what doesn't.
My team I'm mentoring is a low budget team. It's different from 174 which had money to spend as needed. I actually found it slightly easier to design with simple materials and cheap design than get into lots of mechanisms.
I know rookie teams are powerful. I mentored one last year that went to semifinals in Boston and I spent highschool on a low budget team in WA which did well on several occasions. If they were hopeless cases there wouldn't be much point in attempting to look out for them because they'd be well...hopeless. It is out of a deep respect for rookie and low budget teams that I attempt to speak out for their interests.
Originally Posted by Kamikaze
An observation about game complaints: Speaking as a 4th-year FRC programmer, I would say that the differences between the competence of programming teams will be more related to the programming skill, enthusiasm, and awareness of good development practice of the team members more than a particular familiarity with a specific component.
So I don't think the arguments about cameras being easier for veterans that have been presented in this thread hold much water. Teams with quality robot code will have good programming as long as they can retain their skilled members and good practices (e.g. use revision control, sub-divide tasks, test at every step, etc.). The best way to improve your programming team is by having members become passionate about computer science in their own time and investing some effort to go read a few books and papers (and you certainly can't level that out with rules).
Speaking as a 6th-year FRC participant who happens to be majoring in computer science I can agree with you that there are obviously more important things that determine the difference between a competent programming team and an incompetent one. I consider the things you listed to be basic requirements to a functioning programming team. However once you have those basics, having somebody who has done the task before (in this case finding a green light and steering with it) it a tremendous advantage. Your argument strikes me to work along the same lines as if I said, "we shouldn't worry about having programmers who can code or not because nobody will have a working anything without oxygen." While the logic is absolutely true it is rather irrelevant. I am assuming already that most teams which would gain a competitive edge from being in the same starting place as older teams on a sensor have programmers who know how to program with common sense, communicate with the rest of the team and teach themselves more. This is probably the same way that you assume a competent programming team will be programming in a setting with oxygen.
I can't tell you how comforting it is to see you guys argue with me. I really want to be wrong on all of this.
Tetraman
07-01-2007, 12:13
Idea Time!
Since we think that visability might be some small concern in one way or another during compeition, is it expected to see some teams trying to score their keepers in the parts of the Rack the opposing alliance view the easiest?
Crucial to what? Losing?
Last year at an off season event i finally ripped the camera lens part off and threw it at a rookie.. i said dont lose it, it cost a lot of money... We then won the event...
Camera's are my anti-fun
Wow that is even worse than I had imagined! Can anybody confirm the source/provide a link?
Yes. We paid ~$600 yesterday for materials. Constructed entirely of wood and PVC, with the chains and all.
teh_pwnerer795
07-01-2007, 14:29
I'm on mechanical team and all I want to say is...
I Want Some Obstacles On The Field!
Seriously, they could have placed a 4 by 4 piece of pine on the gound at the very least. Imagine how much harder THAT would have been to navigate. Imagine the difficulty in accounting for unpredictable obstacles that block your robot while trying to track an unpredictably moving light.
Actually, I can imagine what 2008 will be like... ;)
no i agree with you... there should be some obstacles on the field. however! as a programmer myself for the first year, and any 1 one else new would probally agree with me on this..... auto mode would be intense to the point that people would not score any points in 15 seconds... i could be wrong.. but those are my thoughts:)
Protronie
07-01-2007, 15:06
ALSO I would like to congratulate FIRST on a great challenge design, I think that it does an awesome job of providing an attainable goal to all levels of teams, from rookie to your single and double digit teams. And, all scoring and defensive opportunities are about balanced for their weight in the overall score outcome of the match. Good job game design! :D
-Q
I have to second that! This game looking like it could be winnable by any team.
Great design!
But lets not forget... its about the students! There are no losers in First :)
Tetraman
07-01-2007, 15:09
no i agree with you... there should be some obstacles on the field. however! as a programmer myself for the first year, and any 1 one else new would probally agree with me on this..... auto mode would be intense to the point that people would not score any points in 15 seconds... i could be wrong.. but those are my thoughts:)
I actually also want another obstacle...like additional places to put rings for points...but because this game can revolve around needing space to place rings and needing space to defend the other alliance from placing rings...wide open spaces are the best idea
Protronie
07-01-2007, 15:10
I'm on mechanical team and all I want to say is...
I Want Some Obstacles On The Field!
Seriously, they could have placed a 4 by 4 piece of pine on the gound at the very least. Imagine how much harder THAT would have been to navigate. Imagine the difficulty in accounting for unpredictable obstacles that block your robot while trying to track an unpredictably moving light.
Actually, I can imagine what 2008 will be like... ;)
You do have obstacles... they called other robots.
You can either go around, move them or my personal fav ... over them :eek:
Cody Carey
07-01-2007, 15:47
Ok, My reaction is that I don't like the game so much. Last years game was awesome, because anybody who came in and sat down could understand " If you put the ball in the hole, you get points for it", because it was reminiscent of basketball. The game let teams choose multiple routs of design: Shooter, Dumper, defense, or all three.
With the introduction of the FIRST KOP wheels, the playing field for defense has been leveled. In previous years we have made custom wheels that enabled us to push anybody, even with IFI traction wheels. These new FIRST wheels are more grippy, and have harder rubber than our custom ones, which means that we will be using them this year. With everybody having the same High traction wheels, FIRST has effectively eliminated defense in this years game (Except for the limited weight advantage that can be gained from weight/height differences).
As for the mechanical design portion of the game, teams are left two options, build an exceptional articulated arm, or build an exceptional lift robot. Building an articulated arm is old hat, and I don't envision building a ramp/lift to be all that difficult. Also, I don't envision too much scoring on the other side of the spider rack, because in order to do this successfully, you have to implement a good camera setup, which quite a few rookie teams won't be able to to, and a fair number of non-rookie teams were unable to do last year.
My last qualm with this game is the complexity of it. We have 120 seconds to complete it, and there is so much strategy in this game that it is kinda like completing a game of Chinese-checkers in two minutes. Not everyone who comes in and sits down will be able to understand what is happening, and after running the game animation for my 14-year-old brother twice, he still didn't understand the entire form of the game.I guess that I wish the game was more design-intensive, and less strategy intensive. That would have provided a more exciting game for non-FIRST viewers, and more exciting game play for FIRST participants.
Just some thoughts on the subject,
-Cody C
Tetraman
07-01-2007, 17:05
Ok, My reaction is that I don't like the game so much. Last years game was awesome, because anybody who came in and sat down could understand " If you put the ball in the hole, you get points for it", because it was reminiscent of basketball. The game let teams choose multiple routs of design: Shooter, Dumper, defense, or all three.
With the introduction of the FIRST KOP wheels, the playing field for defense has been leveled. In previous years we have made custom wheels that enabled us to push anybody, even with IFI traction wheels. These new FIRST wheels are more grippy, and have harder rubber than our custom ones, which means that we will be using them this year. With everybody having the same High traction wheels, FIRST has effectively eliminated defense in this years game (Except for the limited weight advantage that can be gained from weight/height differences).
As for the mechanical design portion of the game, teams are left two options, build an exceptional articulated arm, or build an exceptional lift robot. Building an articulated arm is old hat, and I don't envision building a ramp/lift to be all that difficult. Also, I don't envision too much scoring on the other side of the spider rack, because in order to do this successfully, you have to implement a good camera setup, which quite a few rookie teams won't be able to to, and a fair number of non-rookie teams were unable to do last year.
My last qualm with this game is the complexity of it. We have 120 seconds to complete it, and there is so much strategy in this game that it is kinda like completing a game of Chinese-checkers in two minutes. Not everyone who comes in and sits down will be able to understand what is happening, and after running the game animation for my 14-year-old brother twice, he still didn't understand the entire form of the game.I guess that I wish the game was more design-intensive, and less strategy intensive. That would have provided a more exciting game for non-FIRST viewers, and more exciting game play for FIRST participants.
Just some thoughts on the subject,
-Cody C
Yes!
Exactly my issues with the game as well!
personoly i like challenges, down with silver platters. it will be interesting to see what people do during the competition...at the place where i went for the kickoff had one of those racks made and it seems when you put pressure on a leg that leg stops moving. what i am really wondering is what they will do NEXT year...
StephLee
07-01-2007, 17:28
personoly i like challenges, down with silver platters. it will be interesting to see what people do during the competition...at the place where i went for the kickoff had one of those racks made and it seems when you put pressure on a leg that leg stops moving. what i am really wondering is what they will do NEXT year...
I've barely even thought through this year, forget about next year. That's for off-season daydreaming.
You do have obstacles... they called other robots.
You can either go around, move them or my personal fav ... over them :eek:
one problem with going over, these robots will usually be 4' at the least and that will be a bit hard
StephLee
07-01-2007, 17:30
one problem with going over, these robots will usually be 4' at the least and that will be a bit hard
It was easier last year with the ramp to launch off of...
I am, of course, kidding. I have no intention of so purposefully destroying another robot. That takes all the fun out of it; 2 on 3 games are just no fun.
lol, who says you will break em, i think it would be more fun to hitch a ride on them, like a giant hat, you could still do stuff but not too much
Ian Curtis
07-01-2007, 18:28
It was easier last year with the ramp to launch off of...
Hmm, I never though it it that way. A low weight robot charging up a ramped robot parked next to the edge of the field could result in a flying out-of-bounds robot, and that doesn't seem very safe to me...:eek:
Personally, I'm looking forward to this game. I think it may be too strategic, and next to impossible to score on the far side of the rack. Being a first week regional guy is going to really level the playing field. No one will have any idea how the game is going to play out (except those silly people from Hammond).
Dr_Zaius_22
10-01-2007, 02:13
I must say, when I first saw the game this year I couldn't help but feel a little let down. I'm sure this year will be as awesome as always, but after Atlanta last year (Particularly the finals and that trick they pulled) I think was expecting something a little more original , especially regarding autonomous functions.
I beyond that, I think the main problem with this years game is lack of interest to the spectator. Compared to Aim High, this years game seems slower, harder to understand and generally lacks the (cough) robot Interaction (cough) that last years game included (I'm hoping someone will prove me wrong on all three of these points).
While I'm sure this won't be an issue for the actual FIRST robotics team members, it could prove an issue for Parents/Friend/School-Officals/Sponsors
etc. who have come to watch the competition, especially after watching last year's easy to understand game.
That said, I'm really looking forward to seeing some of this Robot lifting in action. The idea of Teams having to trust one other with their Robot's safety and wellbeing is a nice addition, and I think that it goes well with the FIRST spirit.
Oh and the USB port of the interface is brilliant... You can't imagine how much simpler it will make life for software people...
Jeremytice
10-01-2007, 21:08
When I first saw the game I didnt know what to think. I really didnt like it as much as "aim high", but now it's a very cool game and I like it a lot. The way teams do strategy will be very interesting.
I think that the majority of the "let down" feeling that a lot of people are having stems from the fact that after last year, where untethered projectiles gave such a shock, and the multicolored light prank at nationals, this game doesn't really have the shock factor to it. I mean, sure there's the "Connect 24" aspect :p and the lifting of the robots, but still.
Sgraff_SRHS06
10-01-2007, 22:34
In one sense, the game is a letdown because it is so much like Toroid Terror.
This is a very interesting game, mostly because of the weight classes. At first you say "This is awesome!" but it really restricts your robot. If you design your bot to be small, (from how I'm interpreting everything) you have to be heavier and that's going to take your ability to be lifted away unless other robots happen to design something that can support your weight (which is very easy to do with the right materials and the right structure). If you are tall and light, the challenge becomes making sure you have a low center-of-mass (more weight at the base, less weight at the top) so that you don't tip. It's going to be tough.
As for scoring overall, speed and being able to use the camera are gonna be key here at all ends of the game. And that goes for all classes. And one question, are super-CIM or additional CIM motors legal this year? (I know this is a rules question, but knowing this rule will have a lot of effect on the game.)
This is a very interesting game, mostly because of the weight classes. At first you say "This is awesome!" but it really restricts your robot. If you design your bot to be small, (from how I'm interpreting everything) you have to be heavier and that's going to take your ability to be lifted away unless other robots happen to design something that can support your weight (which is very easy to do with the right materials and the right structure).
Just remember, the height-weight pairings are the maximums for those classes. You can be a short AND light robot, you dont have to be 120 lbs if you are 4ft tall.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.