Next Year's Game? [Archive] - Page 2

Robert Cawthon

12-05-2009, 15:10

And many folks tend to think of defense as something that "anyone" can do, so they pick somebody who is above average offensively and try to force-fit them to that role. But that is simply not true, and I have many friends with medals who can tell them otherwise.

Our rookie year it came home to haunt us. We were the third seeded team at Denver and could choose our alliance. Unfortunately, we chose bots that were similar to ours. :o Any veteran team will tell you the key to winning is to select a complimentary team. This will usually include one bot that is good at defense (Though not necessarily a bot designed entirely for defense) and two good offensive bots.

delsaner

12-05-2009, 22:56

jpmittins

12-05-2009, 23:51

I was wondering, if there is a mass amount of robotics teams in the near future, will alliances in future games be four robots instead of three? It was just a thought.

"\__(O.o)__/" <--- (shrugging face)

Maybe, I just don't think for a while. They would have to make the fields bigger, and that would mean more cost to set up, less ability for small venues to set up (off-seasons) and such. Just be patient, I think in the future it will happen.

Jared Russell

13-05-2009, 08:00

I was wondering, if there is a mass amount of robotics teams in the near future, will alliances in future games be four robots instead of three? It was just a thought.

"\__(O.o)__/" <--- (shrugging face)

It all has to do with value - the cost per match. More robots per match is one way to get each robot out there more often, bringing the average cost down. In 2005 we went to 3 on 3 because FRC had grown to the point that the cost per match got too high.

While 4 on 4 is definitely a possibility as we continue to grow, we have also seen in the past year that something like FIRST in Michigan's model is another way to increase value, with several other side benefits.

Besides, the field can already look crowded with 6 robots. ;)

JaneYoung

13-05-2009, 10:03

Besides, the field can already look crowded with 6 robots.

Keep the size of the field, reduce the size of the robots competing or have an interchange of sizes depending on the role of the robot on the field.

This is going to go over like a lead balloon.

IKE

13-05-2009, 12:58

This is going to go over like a lead balloon.

I was thinkint the same thing. If you want 1/3 more robots on the field, you could reduce the robot sizes by 1/3.
OCCRA in MI runs at about 2/3 the FRC dimensions. Much smaller than that and I think the bots loose too much presence. OCCRA fans are allowed to be pretty close to the Action. Going much smaller would seem too close to VEX, FTC, or BEST.

JaneYoung

13-05-2009, 13:10

I was thinkint the same thing. If you want 1/3 more robots on the field, you could reduce the robot sizes by 1/3.
OCCRA in MI runs at about 2/3 the FRC dimensions. Much smaller than that and I think the bots loose too much presence. OCCRA fans are allowed to be pretty close to the Action. Going much smaller would seem too close to VEX, FTC, or BEST.

Yup. I was thinking about 1/3 smaller, no more. Not VEX, FTC, or BEST size.
But a little smaller if the competition were to go 4 vs 4, would be interesting and less confusing, visually. It would also add new challenges. I do like the idea of mixing up the sizes a bit but for a multi-purpose/layered event but I really do like the GDC folks and wouldn't want to give them any more headaches than they already have.

That said, I'm thinking kind of like tag-teaming and FLL put together. This robot has to perform this task, then go back and tag its alliance partner to perform the next task. Points would be awarded for completing tasks and could be awarded for time taken to complete as well. During build, the robot could be designed to be able to complete all the tasks or specific ones.

Ryan Caldwell

13-05-2009, 13:25

There could be bonuses for thinking inside the limits and outside the refrigerator box.

Would be a pain in the butt administratively but weight classes would be cool, alliance consists of 2 full size and 2 smaller bots

or

Is it within 2/3 of max dimensions? yes = Bonus

Is it under 90lbs? yes = Bonus

or

the field could be designed to make being smaller an advantage at some point (2003 had the limbo bars on the sides of the ramps)

Might make it interesting not having 6, 120lb refrigerator boxes out there.

Rick TYler

13-05-2009, 13:36

This is going to go over like a lead balloon.

Not at all. If you made both the robots and fields smaller, it would probably reduce cost per student AND the cost of putting on regional events.

IKE

14-05-2009, 09:13

Total Chaos.

OCCRA last year played a football related game that was rather interesting. One of the most interesting aspects was the footballs did things that no teams were expecting that created interesting mobility issues.
3 vs. 3 or
4 vs 4.

In my game, the field would be divided into 2 halves with only a line down the middle and a 6 foot circle in the center. Each side would start out with 20 footballs on the floor. For every ball scored, 2 balls will be thrown into the opposing alliances 1/2 by a random launcher. Bots are not allowed to go Off-sides during the first minute. The second minute is wide open. Bonus for any bot completely inside the circle at the end of the match.

Also, I would go back to a 2 bot classification system. Tall bots (standard size), but 100 lb limite, and squat bot (under 3 foot), but they can be 120 lbs.

Andrew Schreiber

14-05-2009, 09:39

IKE

14-05-2009, 10:04

So sort of like a SUMO competition? How would the balls be scored? What about adding heavy objects that the robots can use to gain traction in the end game? I like it.

Scoring, I was thinking like Aim High but use a field goal instead of a hoop. Possibly have two lower goals like aim high also.

It is totally derivative of the OCCRA game last year, but the football was a really neat and challenging game piece.

yeah the end bonus would be if you crossed Sumo with a Rugby Huddle (I forget teh name). 2 to 8 bots trying to occupy the same 6' circle for the bonus. With it being 6', this would make it too difficult for a team to take in the first minute without taking a line fault penalty.

I love the idea of bonus weight playing pieces! Maybe have several 16LB of bowling balls out there that teams could use. Really available, toungh, and difficult to handle. Or you could have a bowling ball ( hard and round so it will be dynamic)(16 lb), a box of rocks (partially filled for a shifting CG piece) (20 lb), and a kevlar bag of sand (heavy and amorphous) (40 lb).

You could be light and agile during the first minute, and then put one your robot Sumo suit (bag box and ball would add 76 pounds!).

What if the center circle was a different material than the carpet?????

Andrew Schreiber

14-05-2009, 11:36

IKE

14-05-2009, 14:09

I will talk to the organizers. I really liked their game last year. It was a lot of fun to watch. They couldn't do footballs 2 years in a row, but I am sure we can find an equally interesting game piece.

I am still holding out for a game with CONES!!!!

Picture a stadium full of cone-heads.....

jpmittins

14-05-2009, 15:36

Scoring, I was thinking like Aim High but use a field goal instead of a hoop. Possibly have two lower goals like aim high also.

It is totally derivative of the OCCRA game last year, but the football was a really neat and challenging game piece.

yeah the end bonus would be if you crossed Sumo with a Rugby Huddle (I forget teh name). 2 to 8 bots trying to occupy the same 6' circle for the bonus. With it being 6', this would make it too difficult for a team to take in the first minute without taking a line fault penalty.

I love the idea of bonus weight playing pieces! Maybe have several 16LB of bowling balls out there that teams could use. Really available, toungh, and difficult to handle. Or you could have a bowling ball ( hard and round so it will be dynamic)(16 lb), a box of rocks (partially filled for a shifting CG piece) (20 lb), and a kevlar bag of sand (heavy and amorphous) (40 lb).

You could be light and agile during the first minute, and then put one your robot Sumo suit (bag box and ball would add 76 pounds!).

What if the center circle was a different material than the carpet?????

I really like the idea of heavy, unwieldy game pieces. It would be great if they didn't have to be handled to make points, then that would allow more bot designs, if there was another aspect to the game. Only problem is that 40 lb. Kevlar bags of sand and 20 lb. bags of shifting rocks would be incredibly difficult for teams to get for personal practice.

I will talk to the organizers. I really liked their game last year. It was a lot of fun to watch. They couldn't do footballs 2 years in a row, but I am sure we can find an equally interesting game piece.

I am still holding out for a game with CONES!!!!

Picture a stadium full of cone-heads.....

Heh, that would be funny. It would be like this year, all of the people with the hats made of white and pink trailer pole jawns.

Robert Cawthon

15-05-2009, 22:37

Footballs? Maybe Nerf Footballs? LOVE IT!! Easy to obtain and hard to predict! GDC, pay attention! ::safety::

afowl

16-05-2009, 21:55

jpmittins

17-05-2009, 22:14

Maybe you could have a game with like a bunch of really tall posts of varying heights throught the field or in the center and have to shoot rings on to them?

Or like having to shoot frisbees into bins high off the ground? Like frisbee-golf or ultimate frisbee or whatever its called...

And I love the idea of ridiculiously large or small objects... or how about both? All pieces are the same shape but there are a ton of small ones, a bunch of normally sized ones and a few monster sized pieces?

This would be epic. I would love to see a field covered in little tiny pieces, being massively scored, while a few boulder sized pieces get rolled around by the more able robots. Would make for interesting spectating.

Ruswolf

17-05-2009, 22:21

I want too see more speed and robot contact something that involves pinning and so on...
Less human interaction
and yes traction

Alex_Miller

17-05-2009, 22:26

[QUOTE=StevnIndustries;856642]Echoing a whole bunch of other people:

1. Not getting penalized for being good! (Is your boss going to punish you for blowing away the competition and making the company a lot of money?)

Only in communist nations

,4lex S.

22-05-2009, 16:43

Realistically, I think it is apparent that physical contact between robots is a key part of a successful game. Additionally, when dramatic things happen, like giant balls flying through the air or robots colliding at high speed, the audience will become much more interested. Any game that contains enough of these exciting elements will help FIRST grow. I think the GDC has been getting better at this, and the highly effective robots playing Lunacy were all very exciting to watch.

Adding more Robots to the field in a match, or Economizing the program in general is not the direction FIRST should be taking. If many American schools can build stadiums for school football teams, it seems reasonable that they should be able to pay the FRC entry fee every year.

lady lighting

22-05-2009, 16:56

Next year their should be three allinences and they should use the light thing like they did a couple of years ago.

LilGrohnke2013

23-05-2009, 18:23

I am hoping for less human player and like others said, a floor like FTC had where only parts were different. There were certain places on the field with different flooring.

EricH

25-05-2009, 00:33

Next year their should be three allinences and they should use the light thing like they did a couple of years ago.
What, you want a 2v1?

I'm sure you have mentors who were around in 1998 or before. Ask them what happens when you have 3 teams on the field. Now, multiply by number of teams per alliance. Meet the alliance system...

jpmittins

25-05-2009, 12:21

What, you want a 2v1?

I'm sure you have mentors who were around in 1998 or before. Ask them what happens when you have 3 teams on the field. Now, multiply by number of teams per alliance. Meet the alliance system...

Yeah, I have to agree. I wasn't around physically, nor were any of my mentors, but judging from the videos I've seen, the 1v1v1 games mostly turned into 2v1. I don't think that's much fun, so I much prefer the 1v1 alliances they have in place now.

CORE 2062

30-05-2009, 10:44

I'd like to see flying robots (it might be possible)

Daniel_LaFleur

30-05-2009, 14:40

I'd like to see flying robots (it might be possible)

Possible? It's absolutely possible.

Probable? Probably not ... mostly because of the safety issues (especially e-stop issues).

But I, too, would love to see a flying robot.

J93Wagner

31-05-2009, 12:50

Possible? It's absolutely possible.

Probable? Probably not ... mostly because of the safety issues (especially e-stop issues).

But I, too, would love to see a flying robot.

How ironic seeing as C.O.R.E. 2062 got the UL Safety Award at 10K Lakes AND WI regional.

I would like to see flying bots though if the safety issues were resolved.

Maybe a large net made of steel cables or teflon . . .

Dr Theta

02-06-2009, 02:30

I personally believe that the use of spherical objects in first comes out of necessity. They are readily available and rather easy to build an easily followable and captivating game around. Therefore I believe that the game for next year should include a spherical game piece; however, I believe it should also include another less comfortable game piece (cones? or cubes?) that will be introduced into the game in smaller quantities and be worth a premium in points.
As for the spherical game pieces they should come in three colors red, blue, and white. Each alliance has a set number of balls of their color, say 15, that as you score them they are recycled into play and each alliance can not score the other alliance's game pieces and are only allowed to hold such a piece for a short period of time to prevent an opposing robot from collecting and possessing all of the opposing alliance's game pieces for the entirety of the match. The white balls would be usable by both teams and introduced in a larger quantity, around 60 when they are scored they are not recycled back into play and they are worth fewer points. At each end of the field there are two stationary goals placed in the corners Each goal has a light above it that turns on randomly for an interval no shorter than 10 seconds yet the total duration that they are on totals 1 minute 30 seconds, both lights will be off for a period of 5 seconds when the light is changing. Game pieces can be scored through the lit goal for a greater number of points and through the other for a minimal number of points. There are also two small goals at the edge of the field that amount to a 2 foot wide slot 18" up on the lexan wall that may be scored in for a small number of points slightly greater than the raised goal whose light is off. Balls scored in these goals are not recycled into play.
Now for the unusual game pieces. There are five of these pieces on the field the number is designed to promote end game strategy. Four of them are placed in corners on hinged ledges beneath the lit goals. These pieces are worth a sizable number of points and each robot may only possess one at a time. They are designed to be unwieldy and to make other scoring difficult when in possession of them making the time at which they are obtained very important. The fifth piece is placed in the middle of the field on a slightly raised platform. These pieces are to be colored a striking purple.
In this game the autonomous period would be extended to 30 seconds and the teleoperated mode would be 2 minutes. Also the robot size limitations should shrink, but the robots would once again be allowed into an orientation not necessarily contained in the bumper zone.
A game like this, in my opinion, would be fun to watch and hopefully to compete in.

Robert Cawthon

02-06-2009, 11:04

I personally believe that the use of spherical objects ... the robot size limitations should shrink, but the robots would once again be allowed into an orientation not necessarily contained in the bumper zone.
A game like this, in my opinion, would be fun to watch and hopefully to compete in.

I like your way of thinking. It seems to be well thought out with several different objectives that can be attempted based on the team's capabilities. One other variable that can be added is to have the white balls of a different size, just to make things a little more difficult. :p

EricH

02-06-2009, 12:42

I personally believe that the use of spherical objects in first comes out of necessity. They are readily available and rather easy to build an easily followable and captivating game around. [...] Also the robot size limitations should shrink, but the robots would once again be allowed into an orientation not necessarily contained in the bumper zone.

I'm going to disagree with your first point. In 2003, teams had no trouble finding the game object in sufficient quantities for two teams to set up a field between them. (Keeping the Sterilite containers intact, however, was another story. We had about 30 at Kickoff, and about 3 after the season.) Same sort of thing in 2007 (and 1997, too, I think). The only other two games with non-spherical game objects that I can remember, 2005 and 1999, the teams got plans from FIRST and had to build their own.

I'm with you on the out-of-bumper perimeter spec. I don't know about the size shrinking (it's hard enough to fit everything as it is), but I'd like to see the multiple size/weight classes return.

MFennig8

03-06-2009, 00:16

So this is what it is going to come down to. Every three years they bring a certain type of game back.

06 & 09 = Game was determined by scoring multiple balls
05 & 08 = Was determined by raising a game piece
04 & 07 = Was determined by the robot itself

So what we might be looking for is a game that it will come down to how the robot can do something, either by itself (like hanging), or with the help of their alliance members (raising them up).

I think it would be nice if they threw everything out of the window, and invented a game that had the mindset of "Aim High" and "Raising the Bar" together.

Keep the carpet idea because teams learn more on the basis of carpet, then add the hoops like Aim High did, and maybe even a couple moveable trailers that you can move around the field. Then having bars set on each side of the field that the robots can hang from, either having to score on the opposite side of the field, or even right in front of you.

EricH

03-06-2009, 02:24

So this is what it is going to come down to. Every three years they bring a certain type of game back.

06 & 09 = Game was determined by scoring multiple balls
05 & 08 = Was determined by raising a game piece
04 & 07 = Was determined by the robot itself

So what we might be looking for is a game that it will come down to how the robot can do something, either by itself (like hanging), or with the help of their alliance members (raising them up).

By that logic:

2004 was just hanging on the bar (and those purple and yellow balls meant nothing), and 2007 was just ramps (and that big obstacle in the middle meant nothing). Please note that 2003 did not even have balls on the field, and if you could raise a goal more than about 2 inches in 2002, you were really doing well. And what about 2001, when your score was based on how fast you completed the task?

That's not the pattern, if there is one.

sgreco

03-06-2009, 07:20

So this is what it is going to come down to. Every three years they bring a certain type of game back.

06 & 09 = Game was determined by scoring multiple balls
05 & 08 = Was determined by raising a game piece
04 & 07 = Was determined by the robot itself.

Although the game pieces weren't large or heavy in '07, they were still being raised like in 05 and 08. I do see that 09 and 06 were similar because of pickup mechanisms and ball storage containers etc. 08 was weird because there was no defense and it was a race, I still liked it though. 05 reminded me of 07, lifting game pieces, defence and then going to your home zone to either get on a ramp or just stay there.

Jared Russell

03-06-2009, 09:03

The more I think about it, the more I love EricVanWyk's ball sorting idea.

Imagine two goals on opposite ends of the field. Some sort of obstacle/endgame item in the middle (a 4x4 all the way across the field? A ramp? A bar to hang on?). FIRST Frenzy-esque ball chutes that release a mixture of white and black (for example) balls.

Red wants the black balls in goal 1 and the white ones in goal 2. Blue wants the white balls in goal 1 and the black ones in goal 2.

Robots can sort the balls themselves using their sensing capabilities, or they can give the balls to their human players to be sorted by hand and re-deposited into the robots or the goals directly. Or, maybe you decide to build a robot that selectively picks up only a certain color of ball. Or...

I get really excited thinking about how various teams would try and solve this problem.

drumfreak

10-06-2009, 15:09

Robot Dance-Off!!!

JM987

10-06-2009, 17:52

you just never know what the game will be:)

Katie_UPS

11-06-2009, 14:19

Tiffany Bostic

12-06-2009, 08:28

i think next year game should be something off the wall that no one will ever see coming

Robert Cawthon

12-06-2009, 10:22

Hey, I know this is kinda off topic, but for who started this thread, and for all those who are continueing it, it REALLY helps when you are trying to make up a game. (Here in Milwaukee, we have this thing called Milwaukee Mentor Vex Challenge (MMVC). Its part of the Midwest Vex Programs (MVP) and its where the students make a game for the Mentors to play. When we were trying to figure out if our game would be good, we judged according to what you guys said about this years game/criteria for next years' games.) Big Thanks. :)

Katie

Glad you can make use of it. I started it mainly because I like to see new ideas flowing and keeping people thinking outside of build season. I also like to imagine some of the games that people come up with. Good luck with the Vex games.

ExarKun666

13-06-2009, 16:48

For the FRC game next year, since in Atlanta last year they announced that there was going to be some add-ons like temperature sensors, it should be something where all the robots on one alliance can communicate to each other, since that was an original specification in the control system, and you have to use the camera, and each driver for a team has an individual curtain.

Then you have to use your laptop, connected to the DS, and look through the robot's eyes, and scout out (from the opposite side of the field to tear down your curtain) if done in autonomous you get bonus points of course, and most importantly the curtains would have to be a color the robot can track. Once teleop starts the curtains all are dropped, and then the object is turned into capture the flag, where robots are required to get the opponents curtains (each alliance would have to have a different colored curtain of course). Then robots would have to go and take the opponents curtains to their side, and of course, your alliance could take them back to your own side. Whoever had the most curtains on their side of the field would win.

Side Note: robots would all have to have some kind of tagging thing, like a 'tagging stick', where the robots held it (it wouldn't be long, maybe a 1/2 foot, 6 inches) and if the robot was able to tag the opponent on their side of the field with the stick, some point deduction would be evaluated. So it would require a sense of dodging and tactical driving skill. No human players, other then the drivers of the robots, and the coaches behind the driver would be included. There would also would be a portion of the field called the 'dead zone' where no tagging happens, but your robot couldn't stay their for a long duration without getting a penalty, unless it was deactivated.

~Mike()

13-06-2009, 19:13

I wanna see something totally crazy, I liked the high speed of this years game, and the concept of needing to catch up with your opponent to score, but I feel like FIRST is out of geometric shapes to use, maybe they will turn to a game like the Vex challenge this year, with regular balls and footballs.

gorrilla

13-06-2009, 19:19

I wanna see cylinders....

J93Wagner

14-06-2009, 20:34

Side Note: robots would all have to have some kind of tagging thing, like a 'tagging stick', where the robots held it (it wouldn't be long, maybe a 1/2 foot, 6 inches) and if the robot was able to tag the opponent on their side of the field with the stick, some point deduction would be evaluated. So it would require a sense of dodging and tactical driving skill. No human players, other then the drivers of the robots, and the coaches behind the driver would be included. There would also would be a portion of the field called the 'dead zone' where no tagging happens, but your robot couldn't stay their for a long duration without getting a penalty, unless it was deactivated.

May I also note that a BIG advantage would be given to those teams with crab or swerve drives.

On the same line, we need a game where nearly all advantages will be stripped except for experience and maybe the drive train. We need something completely crazy with absolutely no prior FIRST connections. Maybe stationary obstacles (Rocks, stairs, no ramps) that need to be driven over to score should be added?

EricH

14-06-2009, 22:06

On the same line, we need a game where nearly all advantages will be stripped except for experience and maybe the drive train. We need something completely crazy with absolutely no prior FIRST connections. Maybe stationary obstacles (Rocks, stairs, no ramps) that need to be driven over to score should be added?Who said anything about STATIONARY? Make them mobile!

For those of us who were around pre-3v3, stationary is old hat-- the '06 ramps are the closest thing since 3v3 started. I'm talking the 2004, 2003, 2000 games and the like. 2001 and 1999 had mobile places to park for points. The bad news was that in 1999, you also wanted said parking space to be in a given area of the field...

~Mike()

14-06-2009, 22:18

Picture this: The field is divided in two sides one blue and on red. On each side, there is a row of triangular prisms. These are fixed to the floor at their base. There are several free prisms on the field and the game is played by pushing the 'free' prisms towards the fixed ones on the wall, interlocking them. The team with the most interlocked prisms wins.

It's a little too simple, I know, but just throwin around ideas.

EricH

14-06-2009, 22:24

alectronic

14-06-2009, 23:04

Katie_UPS

15-06-2009, 01:43

I just wanted to let anyone know who is currently proposing ideas that involve the robot relaying video to the DS, or a computer connected to the DS, that it is unlikely this will happen. In order to maintain the speed of the Field Management System, as much of the bandwidth as possible is kept free. 6 robots worth of streaming video is not going to happen. Maybe there is another way to do something similar without the streaming video?

The problem with that is, not everyteam can afford a laptop to do that. I'm pretty sure our programming lappy has seen dinosaurs, unless we got a new one... and so if that were the only laptop on the team, well... I doubt it could handle video steaming. I'm not saying all we have is a stone-age lappy, but I'm thinking about teams that only have a stone-age lappy. Or no laptop at all.

dbs12693x

15-06-2009, 22:27

How about dodge-ball?

EricH

15-06-2009, 23:54

Actually, I think I found the answer. Somewhere in the spotlights, this thread is linked: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=441106

Some relevant posts:

I've heard the game is fully planned through 2009 and in the 2010 game FRC and FVC robots will be working together to cut Dave's hair, mow his lawn, and serve him dinner. ;) (OK, so FTC teams now...)

Will Dave even *have* hair in 2010? I wonder what that would look like....perhaps an expert Photoshop artist could provide us with a look into the future.

Wrong again, Kressly! You had already been told that the 2009 game will be scaling and cleaning all the fish caught during the 2008 underwater game. The robots don't get to cut my hair until 2011.

-daveWell, we haven't had either of the '08 or '09 games as planned, now have we... I guess they might move up the timetable on the hair-cutting...

XD_bring_it

16-06-2009, 03:51

What about a game of laser tag? Using the same 3v3 alliances, all three robots have a laser pointer but only one of them is the target. Of course for saftey reasons the laser pointer should be kept close to the ground. The target is picked at random encouraging the creation of a versitile robot. There can be various obsticles scattered around the field making a more dynamic driving experience. In autonomous, robots must navigate through the course on their own, jocking for key postions before the start of the tele-op. This game would mostly be won based on strategy than just robot design, giving teams who have less resources than others a fair chance at winning.

Chris is me

16-06-2009, 04:16

If you build a game where strategy alone beats good design, then why would one desire to take the challenge of building a competitive robot? If the game could be won by any robot, you have no incentive to try and push your team forward.

IKE

16-06-2009, 09:12

i think next year game should be something off the wall that no one will ever see coming

What if it was on the wall. Literally. Think Cage Match! Robots have the ability to climb the walls to get to a bonus or something....

DMetalKong

16-06-2009, 13:28

What if it was on the wall. Literally. Think Cage Match! Robots have the ability to climb the walls to get to a bonus or something....

That would be awesome. I've always wanted to see a game where we can finally grab on to the field elements.

Daniel_LaFleur

16-06-2009, 18:40

I just wanted to let anyone know who is currently proposing ideas that involve the robot relaying video to the DS, or a computer connected to the DS, that it is unlikely this will happen. In order to maintain the speed of the Field Management System, as much of the bandwidth as possible is kept free. 6 robots worth of streaming video is not going to happen. Maybe there is another way to do something similar without the streaming video?

Why not let teams stream video if they want to but limit the bandwidth they get. I believe 802.11G has 56Mb/s so if we only gave each team 2Mb/s then the 6 robots would only take up less than 1/4 of the bandwidth (at worst) and FMS would enjoy lots of bandwidth. Then you let teams do with their bandwidth as they choose ;)

bobwrit

19-06-2009, 20:26

Fully autonomous flying robots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Aerial_Robotics_Competition). 'Nuff said.

EricH

20-06-2009, 15:53

Fully autonomous flying robots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Aerial_Robotics_Competition). 'Nuff said.
Not those! When I'm at college, my Aero Design team works next to the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle team, which competes in the IARC. They use gas-powered helicopters that drop electric helicopters to enter the building.

And it takes a team of about 20 college students, with a budget that's a bit bigger than an FRC team's, all year to do this. Do you think you could do something like this in 6 weeks with your current level of funding?

Something simpler, I could probably see. But I highly doubt that this will be practical for another couple decades.

demosthenes2k8

20-06-2009, 16:11

One function proves that that idea is no good: go_go_go();

I know that I, at least, would enjoy a game that focused less on human players besides strategists and controlling the robot. Lunacy's human player element threw the game off IMHO.

Something that made more use of AI would be fun...core wars (or similar) during a FRC match between 6 robots? Happy fun time!

Katie_UPS

21-06-2009, 16:39

Also predict there will be something in the middle of the field that is a different material than the rest of the field so it is harder to get to the otherside. A gravel pit would be awesome

Can't we just go old-school and use corn?

arob9119

21-06-2009, 19:08

I would like to see the wireless connection between the field and the robots to be better.

Katie_UPS

21-06-2009, 21:06

I would like to see the wireless connection between the field and the robots to be better.

Thats not affected by the game. Thats something completely different.

gorrilla

21-06-2009, 21:13

It would be crazy if two of the three robots on each alliance were "chained" and had to do some task together.....

Or maybe all three would be "chained" to some really heavy "thing" and had to play a game while dragging it around.....

or tied to each alliance station wall and maybe the middle of the feild by bungee's so the farther you went the harder it was to move...

Katie_UPS

21-06-2009, 21:23

MORE CRAZY FLOORS!

Like... A GIANT BALL PIT.

Or the game is like... FIND THE NEEDLE IN THE HAYSTACK. NO MAGNETS ALLOWED! :D:D

That would be fun. :)

I really want to see a capture the flag game. I've been trying to create one, but I can never quite figure out how it would work.

demosthenes2k8

22-06-2009, 12:46

Like the bungee idea, think no magnets is slightly obvious. Giant ball pit? Challenge: do not sink. You have 2:15. Fail and face erasure.

For CTF, we'd need a 2x2 field size-twice as long in each direction-for it to be really fun. Plus a small envelope...

Chris is me

22-06-2009, 13:12

Capture the flag would be truly awful, I think. I can just see it being about as "fun" and "exciting" as a 2002 match versus 71. Just pulling.

youngWilliam14

22-06-2009, 16:41

hurtzmyhead

22-06-2009, 19:42

me like :) except idt that they would go with it cause of the whole shooting each other factor

Fe_Will

22-06-2009, 22:53

How 'bout dis:

Equip all robots with NERF Vulcans or another auto/semiauto dart gun (supply one, teams can buy up one or two more?)

Each alliance has an area next to the driver's station where you drive the robot in and the HP can touch the robot to reload the Vulcans

Robots must have a standard target fixed to a sensor easily set off by the darts

HP's could also have Big Bad Bows or Recons

XD

How about having IR beams emitted from the robot and shooting receivers mounted on the field to trigger event(s). Or the receivers are on opposing robots?

I also like the idea of multi tiered fields that use chin-up bars, al la 2004, to pull your self up on to the next higher platform.

What ever the game is, as long as there are more than two pieces / ways to score it will be a fun game. (imo)

youngWilliam14

24-06-2009, 15:14

i say we have a mash-up of previous FIRST games :D

Robert Cawthon

24-06-2009, 16:59

i say we have a mash-up of previous FIRST games :D

Mash up? Do you mean combining elements from previous games? If so, which elements and how would you combine them?

youngWilliam14

25-06-2009, 08:35

i'm not sure what i'd do. this is probably something for the GDC to look into for FIRST's 20th game year ;)

jmanela

25-06-2009, 09:02

i say we have a mash-up of previous FIRST games :D

they kinda recycled pieces from previous games, just check out the goals from zone zeal and raising the bar, and of course, lunacy. (check the attatchment)

Alex2614

25-06-2009, 17:13

ok, I would like to start off by saying that another member of our team and I were "speculating" in December on the way back from WV FLL tournament. He said that it was not likely that the game would involve a slick floor (commenting on the "fish" clue) due to safety hazards. Boy i don't think he could've been any more wrong.

Anyway, some things I noticed about this year's game:

-spectators that were not a part of FIRST got bored and confused trying to follow LUNACY. It was simply too complicated.
-It had a human player role that was way too important to the game. Overall robot ability varied from competition to competition. For example, in pittsburgh, the overall the human players were more dominant than the robots, but in palmetto, it was opposite.
-Some strategies were completely abandoned in some competitions. ex the emptycell/supercell, driving on the edge to get more traction from carpet, the camera-track that drove the robot itself, as opposed to, like what we had, that simply guided the driver.
-However, I did like the double-score penalty this year. I do think that or something like it should be implemented in next year's game.

What I would like to see in the 2010 game:

-A simple, but not necesarily easy challenge (such as the "hurdle" in 2008) that would be a "main task," as opposed to several things going on at once druing a single match. spectators get too confused.
-Very little "human element." Not something as primary and important as LUNACY.
-More complex autonomous tasks, as opposed to simply "driving around" like in OVERDRIVE and LUNACY. Maybe like different colors on the field to score uber points, giving teams an incentive to actually have an autonomous mode. You know, like half of a match's points being scored in autonomous mode. I'm thinking the first 15 seconds should be one of the most exciting periods of the match (and of course, the last 20 secs as well, but that's a given no matter what the game is).
-I do like what a couple people have said earlier: having a mix of some previous year's games like in FIRST Frenzy. That seems like it would be a really interesting game.
-I also liked how the scoring was done on the robots themselves (or the traliers, rather) as opposed to a goal or an "overpass." I think if they had both scoring on opponents (or teammates'?) robot AND an outside scoring method like in past games.
-Okay one other thing I always thought would be cool, is to have a "blind" driver. Maybe either one team on the alliance, or all teams for a period of time in the match, or something like that. You know, have something covering the plexi in front of the drivers for the first minute or something. Teams would only have their sensors and cameras and stuff to guide them. Or have the drivers blind and another human player on the side of the field be able to see, comunicating via walkie-talkies or a remote of some kind that lights up lights on the control board, in turn guiding the drivers...idk, just a thought.

youngWilliam14

25-06-2009, 20:09

-Okay one other thing I always thought would be cool, is to have a "blind" driver. Maybe either one team on the alliance, or all teams for a period of time in the match, or something like that. You know, have something covering the plexi in front of the drivers for the first minute or something. Teams would only have their sensors and cameras and stuff to guide them. Or have the drivers blind and another human player on the side of the field be able to see, comunicating via walkie-talkies or a remote of some kind that lights up lights on the control board, in turn guiding the drivers...idk, just a thought.

as a retired FRC driver, i cringe at this :(

Robert Cawthon

26-06-2009, 11:10

as a retired FRC driver, i cringe at this :(

Being outside of your comfort zone is not always a bad thing! :ahh:

youngWilliam14

26-06-2009, 11:19

Being outside of your comfort zone is not always a bad thing! :ahh:

yes, but i'm sure that most, if not all, drivers would hate that after trying it once XD

AndyB

26-06-2009, 11:33

yes, but i'm sure that most, if not all, drivers would hate that after trying it once XD

Yeah. I can't imagine blind-driving would be fun. I think it's one of those things that would be funny to watch for the first dozen matches on Friday and then it would just start getting old.

I'm still waiting for footballs to make an appearance. They are cheap, you can buy them anywhere, they don't break, and they present a very unique challenge.

It's also been 3 or 4 years since we've seen ramps (and 6 since we've seen steps).

I think it would be interesting if the endzones were inclined so that without some sort of braking mechanism, a bot would roll off after the buzzer sounds.

youngWilliam14

26-06-2009, 11:41

I think it would be interesting if the endzones were inclined so that without some sort of braking mechanism, a bot would roll off after the buzzer sounds.

which gives birth to next year's field:
http://monsterguide.net/images/how-to-build-a-halfpipe.jpg

AndyB

26-06-2009, 12:29

I was thinking more along the lines of this:

http://www.icecourt.com/images/pro_beach_02.jpg

But we could do 20 footers too... Whatever works. =)

youngWilliam14

26-06-2009, 13:04

so we need a multi-tiered half pipe for next year :D

AndyB

26-06-2009, 13:16

so we need a multi-tiered half pipe for next year :D

Yes. With footballs. :)

youngWilliam14

26-06-2009, 13:18

as well as frisbees: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=77748

AndyB

26-06-2009, 13:25

There you go GDC. Your welcome.

:cool:

Chris is me

26-06-2009, 16:04

Now I wanna throw a robot on my friend's miniramp and see what happens... see if I can pull off some 180s and whatnot.

Robert Cawthon

26-06-2009, 18:42

Now we are thinking outside of the box! (or at least outside the hockey rink shape!) ;)

NorviewsVeteran

26-06-2009, 18:49

see if I can pull off some 180s and whatnot.

I look forward to videos of the whatnot.

Chris is me

26-06-2009, 19:25

I'd build a Vex bot to do it, but the motors would be way too slow to get any air. I also don't have access to CIM powered robots, so it looks like it'll be a pipe dream for now.

I bet I could get it to do a flair or two.

CORE 2062

28-06-2009, 11:13

demosthenes2k8

29-06-2009, 10:03

whatnot may be boring. Try for some shenanigans.

A delay could be dangerous and expensive...how about, for a much more interesting idea, humans riding the robots?

youngWilliam14

29-06-2009, 10:58

next year all robots must hover

ttldomination

29-06-2009, 11:17

:D. As neat as these ideas are, next year's game will be something crazy. No doubt. And my ... expectations for next year's game are...

1. The carpet will make a huge return. I think FIRST will not experiement with another flooring for a while.

2. I expect the game element to NOT be a ball. We got away with round shaped objects for two years, and I don't think we'll be lucky enough for a third year.

3. I expect for the last seconds of the match to also count a lot more. This year, while the super cell did make/break some matches, I don't think it played THAT big of a role in the larger scope of the matches. So I think that the last second bonuses will also be more influential.

youngWilliam14

29-06-2009, 11:43

2. I expect the game element to NOT be a ball. We got away with round shaped objects for two years, and I don't think we'll be lucky enough for a third year.

if you count ringers as round in shape, it's been four years in a row ><

ttldomination

29-06-2009, 16:25

if you count ringers as round in shape, it's been four years in a row ><

I guess by round, I mainly meant "ball" shape.

demosthenes2k8

30-06-2009, 08:43

"spherical" maybe?

I think that we'll have to drive on an upside-down surface...DUN DUN DUN!

Robert Cawthon

30-06-2009, 10:47

I think that all communication between the drivers station and the robot should be delayed by 15 seconds. Obviously, the communication about the robot's mode (which means that response to the e-stop button would be instant.)

What would be the round trip delay for a signal to Mars next January? Might the GDC build that amount of delay into the video/return signaling from the robot to the drivers station to simulate the control of the Mars Rovers? Could we be going to Mars this year instead of the moon? :D

Chris is me

30-06-2009, 10:54

The GDC likes thinking outside the box, right? What about thinking outside the two minute time limit? What if there's a way to end the game before the timer runs out?

EricH

30-06-2009, 15:30

The GDC likes thinking outside the box, right? What about thinking outside the two minute time limit? What if there's a way to end the game before the timer runs out?Have you looked at the 2001 rules?

The short version: 4v0 (otherwise this wouldn't have worked), multipliers for hitting the E-stop and shutting off your robot early. Catch: everyone had to do it to get the multiplier. Ever since, there has been a note in the rules about the E-stop not being reversible and not affecting scoring.

I forget what the exact multiplier was, but I think it was x1 in the last 30 seconds, x 1.5 in the last minute, x2 in the last 1.5 minutes, x3 in the first 30 seconds. Someone correct me on that, because I think there was an x4, but I don't know where and it's been a *few* years since I watched that one.

SushaK

30-06-2009, 16:11

whatnot may be boring. Try for some shenanigans.

A delay could be dangerous and expensive...how about, for a much more interesting idea, humans riding the robots?

oo i like that! i'd be so up for it... 461 has experimented with that before too, it was fun but a bit dangerous, especially if the robot came to an unexpected jerky stop...

how about something to do with squares? or cubes? maybe soft, colorful, and large cubes like the ones thaT little kids play with or that i used as chairs... some game to do with those would be fun

NorviewsVeteran

30-06-2009, 16:14

Maybe PVC cubes, rather like the tetras?

youngWilliam14

01-07-2009, 08:02

we should get a bunch of beanbag chairs and use those as game pieces!

jmanela

01-07-2009, 14:31

This year, while the super cell did make/break some matches, I don't think it played THAT big of a role in the larger scope of the matches. So I think that the last second bonuses will also be more influential.

I am sorry, but for us, the supercells made a huge difference. Without them, alot of our matches wouldv'e changed for the better, or worse...

jmanela

01-07-2009, 14:33

we should get a bunch of beanbag chairs and use those as game pieces!

That would actually be interesting...
You would have the build a robot that picks up something that contantly shifts it's wheight.

youngWilliam14

01-07-2009, 14:40

That would actually be interesting...
You would have the build a robot that picks up something that contantly shifts it's wheight.

don't forget the shifting dimensions as well :D

ttldomination

01-07-2009, 15:46

The GDC likes thinking outside the box, right? What about thinking outside the two minute time limit? What if there's a way to end the game before the timer runs out?

OHHHHHHH!!!. That is a one interesting idea. For example,

Like there are balls on the field, and a robot can hit the stop button once it has let's say 15 balls in various containers. Once the robot hits one of the stop buttons, then it's frozen. And the scoring goes opposite of the order of the robots to get stopped. So 1st robot stopped gets 50 points and the second robot stopped gets 45 points, etc.

Or it could be the other way around, but simply the idea of it is simply...sleep depriving.

demosthenes2k8

01-07-2009, 15:48

What? It goes into the 8th dimension?

That actually sounds fun (beanbag chairs I mean, not other dimensions)

youngWilliam14

01-07-2009, 15:51

Like there are balls on the field...

why balls? :( what about about an object non-uniform in shape, that's magnetic or something?

Chris is me

01-07-2009, 16:59

This year, while the super cell did make/break some matches, I don't think it played THAT big of a role in the larger scope of the matches. So I think that the last second bonuses will also be more influential.

This is mostly because many teams, mine included, ignored the cells when they shouldn't. Teams such as 217 show what leaving the 15 point Supercell on the table does to a match, and I don't think it was a surprise that both of the final alliances on Einstein had teams that had used robot-loaded Supercells in the past.

Teams with long range, low throughput shooters really were what the Supercell was designed for in my opinion, as throwing two of those in a trailer's the equivalent of a fairly substantial power dump.

I honestly don't know why more teams didn't make the Supercells part of their game plan and load them into their robots. It's not terribly hard to convert an Empty Cell and it's one of the best ways to beat pinners and ball starvation strategies.

(yes my team will be doing supercells at IRI, you just wait :P)

hipsterjr

01-07-2009, 17:15

HINT(sort of) "What do Crackerjacks have to do with anything?

from Bill's blog today -http://frcdirector.blogspot.com/2009/07/what-do-crackerjacks-have-to-do-with.html

NorviewsVeteran

01-07-2009, 17:36

Well, Crackerjack just went back to their old label design for a while and sells them in 3-packs at Walmart...

Could be a throwback and/or using 3's in a new way.

bobwrit

01-07-2009, 18:17

I'd like to see a cube as a game peice, personaly. Maybe a dynamicly changing feild(height of sections, steepness of ramps, ect). Also maybe a diffrent feild shape, like a hexagon.

NorviewsVeteran

01-07-2009, 18:44

As cool as it would be, the problem with a dynamic field is the cost to practice.

ttldomination

01-07-2009, 19:46

EricH

02-07-2009, 00:57

Crackerjack can also be a term for "crazy", which is what you guys are. Go take some time off from FIRST for a couple of months. You'll need it. Don't believe me? You will in a few years.

Chris is me

02-07-2009, 01:44

Oh god...the thread is slowly growing faster...

Well, I'm guessing the game element will be a fragile object, but easily fixable. But at least we know one thing, the carpet's back!!!!!!!!! :D.

"We’ve laid out carpet salvaged from Championship and set up field #1" - Bill

CALLED IT!!!

To be fair there was even carpet this year. They just put the regolith on top of it. I don't see them using anything other than carpet though. Every other surface seems to be similar to carpet or regolith, either low or high traction...

youngWilliam14

02-07-2009, 08:21

Every other surface seems to be similar to carpet or regolith, either low or high traction...

they could take it to extremes and cover the field in ice :P

ttldomination

02-07-2009, 11:09

they could take it to extremes and cover the field in ice :P

Logistically speaking, ice would be a pain in the butt to maintain, probably harder than a water game, or what not, but it's a nice thought.

youngWilliam14

02-07-2009, 11:14

if we can build a ski resort in the middle of a desert, we can maintain ice
http://www.skidubai.com/

:P

demosthenes2k8

02-07-2009, 11:34

Good old Dubai...you gotta love their projects.

I like the dynamic field idea, but it's too impractical to do...maybe a game where the robots have to open a box of Crackerjacks and get the prize out, without crunching up the jacks, and putting them into a bowl?

dlavery

02-07-2009, 12:01

Oh god...the thread is slowly growing faster...

Well, I'm guessing the game element will be a fragile object, but easily fixable. But at least we know one thing, the carpet's back!!!!!!!!! :D.

"We’ve laid out carpet salvaged from Championship and set up field #1" - Bill

CALLED IT!!!

We also learned that the carpet is very absorbent. It can be moistened frequently without damage.

-dave

.

Daniel_LaFleur

02-07-2009, 13:02

We also learned that the carpet is very absorbent. It can be moistened frequently without damage.

-dave

.

... and so it begins :D

.

JaneYoung

02-07-2009, 13:14

... and so it begins :D

.

Just think how much fun everyone would have if the game piece was squirt bottles.

So many options such as a fine mist or a straight zap.

So, I best mosey along now...

youngWilliam14

02-07-2009, 13:44

...._____
....||||||]---------------------------
....|88|\
.../888|.\
./88888\
|888888|
|888888|
|888888|
|888888|

look ma, it's a 2010 KOP item!

EricH

02-07-2009, 15:10

... and so it begins :D

.
Begins? You mean continues, don't you?

Oh, and Dave, I thought you were still hibernating. It's not the end of summer yet...:D

Akash Rastogi

02-07-2009, 16:05

demosthenes2k8

02-07-2009, 17:13

But it'd be so tasty! And it involves Cracker Jacks!

Tyler Hicks

03-07-2009, 16:19

I don't think that FIRST is going to have two years in a row of Non-Carpet Floor.

I think that the field is going to be a symmetrical obsticle course, and robots will have to retrieve a game peice from the other side. Sorta like CTF, but better, and with robots!

fuzzy1718

03-07-2009, 21:18

instead of a slick floor, I would like to see slick ramps!! Keep the floor carpet, but for the end game have people climb up ramps that are both steep and "icy" so to speak.

Or have a king of the hill style end game with a raised slick platform in the middle. First one to get traction sends everyone else sliding off the side.:D

Chris is me

03-07-2009, 21:29

I want ramps so sufficiently steep and slippery that the only way you can climb them is if you hook your robot on something and pull your bot up the slope.

dman14

04-07-2009, 18:38

I want ramps so sufficiently steep and slippery that the only way you can climb them is if you hook your robot on something and pull your bot up the slope.

How about a rope hanging down the slope? and the bot has to pull itself past markers on the slope, the higher up it is the more points at the final buzzer?

ttldomination

05-07-2009, 01:14

I guess that the game would be fun after a while, but like...for the first minute and thirty seconds it wouldn't be that much of a joy...

Chris is me

05-07-2009, 03:49

This would be a component of an endgame rather than an entire game.

acidrain2012

06-07-2009, 00:03

anybody ever think about water.......? as in boats......? that would be very interesting.......... :ahh:

youngWilliam14

06-07-2009, 08:09

anybody ever think about water.......?:

no, never. :P

kellyerin91

06-07-2009, 08:52

I really like the idea of either a slope or something to climb. Maybe a rock wall? It would cause the robots to need to be lightweight, maneuverable, and powerful enough to lift their own weight.
As for water, the setup would be really extensive, I would be suprised if they decided to do it. Not that it wouldn't be awesome! :D

murtazafatehi

06-07-2009, 12:46

I love how everyone want the human player to do less however i feel as if the whole point of these games is to bring robot life closer to human life. so if a game that has involvement of both seems brilliant idea . although this past years game was a little too dependent on human player i think its a great challenge to build robot that can outdo humans thus last years game so i look forward to another challenging and fun year that involves both

JaneYoung

06-07-2009, 12:59

EricH

06-07-2009, 17:00

I could go with the climbing thing. It's been a few years. 2004 and 2000 were the last two games to have a hanging element... It's not a matter of getting up to a certain height, it's a matter of staying up there until you want to remove the robot.

demosthenes2k8

06-07-2009, 17:23

Robot Jousting anyone?

Stormnnormn

06-07-2009, 22:49

http://makeastorm.com/FRC2010.PNG

Alright, this is a game concept I came up with. Obviously, as it stands, it has no way to incorporate human players. However, I see it is as an expandable concept. More tasks or objects could be added to make the game even more difficult.

To start off with, this concept can be seen in a lot of video games. It is also found in different shapes and forms.

In this basic concept, teams are required to mine resources from the opponents mine, and then bring them back to their own mine to transfer them. Teams could gain defensive/offensive bonuses by having more robotics in a mining area. For example, in order for blue to steal from a red mine, they must have more robots than red in the red mine. So if there are 2 blue robots and 1 red robot in a red mine, then the blue robots successfully steal resources from the red. Then are then free to deposit it in their own mine.

Depositing could then be done by either the robots that took it or any robot on the team. Also, they could be required to have to more than the other team in their mine to deposit them.

Also, other objects, such as big boxes, or little balls could be pushed around for bonuses. There could also be obstacles or ramps to overcome.You could implement a universal mine for both teams to get resources from or a gold mine or mountain for bonus points.

Im not sure how the points transfer could be done, perhaps with sensors or manually with scorekeepers at each mine.

After trying to explain this, I realize it may be too complicated or boring to implement, but perhaps you guys can find ideas or ways for it to work. After all, it is just a concept.

:ahh: Whatever the game, perhaps a way to STEAL points, it makes it more dynamic. DISCLAIMER: Stealing is bad and should not be attempted at home.

Keri Lynne

08-07-2009, 02:13

I would like the game to be called Sanity. Just for irony's sake.

demosthenes2k8

09-07-2009, 14:56

That's not irony, that's sarcasm!

Mr. Pockets

09-07-2009, 15:26

anybody ever think about water.......? as in boats......? that would be very interesting..........
Water game is probably unlikely because of the tricky setup and the fact that the field gains the potential to totally wreck your bot if you make a slight oops (something that will leave everybody cranky). It would be neat if they could find a way around that though.

Whatever the game, perhaps a way to STEAL points, it makes it more dynamic. DISCLAIMER: Stealing is bad and should not be attempted at home.
That or you could go from the other direction and make it possible to unscore your opponents points. Either way it would be really neat.

EricH

09-07-2009, 15:30

That or you could go from the other direction and make it possible to unscore your opponents points. Either way it would be really neat.
Yeah, I'd like to see descoring return; it was legal back in the day. Adds an extra strategic element.

Keri Lynne

10-07-2009, 16:00

That's not irony, that's sarcasm!
Maybe it is just a little bit of both. :)

dlavery

23-07-2009, 10:16

That or you could go from the other direction and make it possible to unscore your opponents points. Either way it would be really neat.

Descoring was eliminated from the matrix of desirable game design characteristics after 2003. The feedback from teams for several years preceding that was consistent and universal - they hated descoring. This was reconfirmed with the brief flirtation with "Spoilers" in "Rack 'n Roll." So don't look for descoring to come back any time soon. At least, not before 2010.

-dave

.

JVN

23-07-2009, 10:37

Descoring was eliminated from the matrix of desirable game design characteristics after 2003. The feedback from teams for several years preceding that was consistent and universal - they hated descoring. This was reconfirmed with the brief flirtation with "Spoilers" in "Rack 'n Roll." So don't look for descoring to come back any time soon. At least, not before 2010.

-dave

Based on my recollections of the community 'responses' to FIRST games...I would think that the feedback was more in line with:
"We don't like that it is so easy for teams to undo what we did."

I would believe that most teams would accept descoring if it was suitably difficult, and I believe that teams would admire a robot capable of it.

That would be a far cry from 2003 when a robot could drive into a stack and undo 2 minutes of work in 2 seconds.

I'm sorry to hear that "descoring" was entirely removed from your matrix.

-John

IKE

23-07-2009, 10:54

Based on my recollections of the community 'responses' to FIRST games...I would think that the feedback was more in line with:
"We don't like that it is so easy for teams to undo what we did."

I would believe that most teams would accept descoring if it was suitably difficult, and I believe that teams would admire a robot capable of it.

That would be a far cry from 2003 when a robot could drive into a stack and undo 2 minutes of work in 2 seconds.

I'm sorry to hear that "descoring" was entirely removed from your matrix.

-John

John,
This may be a good opportunity to point out some methods where descoring would require as much or more skill than scoring. as you mentioned, 2003 was a prime example of too easy to descore.
In Triple play it was very difficult towards the end of the match to score without descoring some of the more highly contested positions.
Rack and Roll would have required similar efforts to score vs. descore (at least thinking about it initially).
What are some possible scoring methods where descoring would be more difficult than scoring? Balls into a fixed tube? removing something that is latched onto something else?

James Tonthat

23-07-2009, 11:05

Whatever the game should be...

Please make the game cheap (inexpensive, easily obtainable game pieces and floor)

Please let the teams think out of the box, and in different ways.

Jared Russell

23-07-2009, 12:45

The fundamental problem with de-scoring is that there are very few types of games in which it is not as easy or easier to de-score than it is to score in the first place. The goal for each team is to achieve a low-entropy goal state. Increasing the entropy of the field state (knocking down bins, tipping goals, etc.) will almost always be so much easier than decreasing it that, in a minimax sense, optimal strategies will rely heavily - even exclusively - on de-scoring.

Spoilers in 2007, and ownership of the goals in 2005, are constructive de-scoring techniques - the total entropy of the field has been decreased, but the field state has been moved further from the other teams' goal. These are the only sorts of de-scoring mechanisms that I feel can be a part of the game without dominating the effective strategies for playing it.

I think I speak for (almost) everyone when I say - I don't want a game that can only be won by playing with a certain strategy. 2003 was such a game.

JVN

23-07-2009, 14:38

John,
This may be a good opportunity to point out some methods where descoring would require as much or more skill than scoring. as you mentioned, 2003 was a prime example of too easy to descore.
In Triple play it was very difficult towards the end of the match to score without descoring some of the more highly contested positions.
Rack and Roll would have required similar efforts to score vs. descore (at least thinking about it initially).
What are some possible scoring methods where descoring would be more difficult than scoring? Balls into a fixed tube? removing something that is latched onto something else?

Good point, another example -
In 2000 teams placed 13" diameter inflatable balls into "troughs" elevated 6 (or so) feet off the ground. It was relatively easy to put balls into these troughs, but more difficult to get balls out.

IKE

23-07-2009, 16:49

Yeah I was thinking giant Caribiners (sp?) would be neat. Relatively difficult to hook something onto (challenge), and extremely difficult to un-hook (but not impossible).

Mr. Pockets

23-07-2009, 17:26

The fundamental problem with de-scoring is that there are very few types of games in which it is not as easy or easier to de-score than it is to score in the first place. The goal for each team is to achieve a low-entropy goal state. Increasing the entropy of the field state (knocking down bins, tipping goals, etc.) will almost always be so much easier than decreasing it that, in a minimax sense, optimal strategies will rely heavily - even exclusively - on de-scoring.
Actually when you think about it Lunacy was one example where it would have been much harder to de-score points than it would be to score them. Disregarding for a second the rules about robotic appendages not extending outside the bumper perimeter, robots and payload specialists could load balls into trailers with relative ease. Once the game pieces are in the trailer anybody trying to un-score them would have a far more difficult time. Though then again, if extend-able appendages allowed then they could simply be used to cover the trailer and stop scoring kind of making de-scoring unnecessary...

DtD

23-07-2009, 17:37

Less human interaction. And more exciting. For our team, it was pretty much mutual that Lunacy was nowhere near as exciting as Overdrive.

~DtD

Rick TYler

23-07-2009, 18:13

What are some possible scoring methods where descoring would be more difficult than scoring?

I would say any game where an object is put into a goal: FTC Face Off and VRC Elevation are good examples. In Quad Quandry, the scoring object was placed around the goal, but it would have been a coin flip as to whether descoring was more difficult than scoring.

ttldomination

23-07-2009, 21:24

I would say any game where an object is put into a goal: FTC Face Off and VRC Elevation are good examples. In Quad Quandry, the scoring object was placed around the goal, but it would have been a coin flip as to whether descoring was more difficult than scoring.

Yes but one has to look at scale. If you scaled out the FTC field into FRC and just put large bins out..that would be HUGE. I'm not saying it's not possible, heck that might actually be fun, but I'm not sure how likely that is.

And I think that descoring would have been harder this year than scoring. I can't comment on previous years, but the main problem in '07 with the 'spoiler' was that it was so difficult to put on, that 'mostly' teams didn't bother with them.

As far as descoring concerns, I feel that it should be a robot ability, and it should definitely be harder than scoring, but to a certain degree.

synth3tk

23-07-2009, 22:43

Less human interaction. And more exciting. For our team, it was pretty much mutual that Lunacy was nowhere near as exciting as Overdrive.

~DtD
For our team, it was quite the opposite. We found that Overdrive was Overboring, and Lunacy was pure awesome contained in a rectangle-type area.

WRG

24-07-2009, 13:57

I'm thinking a water involved game.

youngWilliam14

24-07-2009, 14:45

'mostly' teams didn't bother with them

i can proudly say my team enjoyed using them ;)

For our team, it was quite the opposite. We found that Overdrive was Overboring, and Lunacy was pure awesome contained in a rectangle-type area.

i honestly thought that both were boring. overdrive was nothing but driving in circles, and lunacy was a really bad car wreck that wouldn't stop happening ><

I'm thinking a water involved game.

human players load water balloons into their robots... *mischievous grin*

Chris is me

24-07-2009, 16:18

I think Lunacy is as close as anyone will get to a water game. We had soaking carpets and everything!

demosthenes2k8

24-07-2009, 20:52

Soaking carpets? Did I miss something?

synth3tk

24-07-2009, 23:32

Soaking carpets? Did I miss something?
You and me both. There must be quite a story behind such a statement.

NorviewsVeteran

24-07-2009, 23:43

At some regionals they watered down the carpets to keep down static buildup.

Daniel_LaFleur

25-07-2009, 08:54

You and me both. There must be quite a story behind such a statement.

Look here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8Mv9LYRNcY) to see Dean Kamen watering down the carpet at GSR (Yay ... watergame :D)

Lavapicker

28-07-2009, 21:19

How about a moving target suspended from above with random, not predicted, movement. It would make for some mean sensors needed during autonomous to find it. Or, you could have robotic tetherball!

Dragon Princess

29-07-2009, 14:27

i think an area where the robot has to use complete autonomous to find a colored object. Then it goes to the driver station to where they have a choice to fire the colored object over a wall into a target like in aim high, and then go back for more colored object into autonomous; or they could go over the wall to take away the other teams colored object in a teli-op mode like the semi-autonomous of overdrive; or the robot could hang on a constantly rising bar to gain an increase of points as long as it hangs on, if it keeps the colored object for the entire time then during the last 20 seconds, while still hanging, it could shoot the object at a goal higher up for extra points, similar to the super-cell was this year. There can only be one robot on the bar between both alliances so in the beginning it's a race, and when ever a robot falls off the bar immediately drops down again and gives the other team a chance to grab onto the bar.

youngWilliam14

29-07-2009, 15:28

...a robot falls off the bar...

does anyone else cringe at this? it's a good idea, but i'd hate to find my robots frame seriously damaged

Akash Rastogi

29-07-2009, 15:44

does anyone else cringe at this? it's a good idea, but i'd hate to find my robots frame seriously damaged

It'd be a seriously cool challenge. Robust robots at their best.

delsaner

29-07-2009, 18:05

How about a moving target suspended from above with random, not predicted, movement.

I really like that idea, but the idea of the target miandering around may be a bit too difficult. Realistically, a moving target with a set course sounds like a fair challenge, but that is just my point of view.

EricVanWyk

29-07-2009, 18:32

How about a moving target suspended from above with random, not predicted, movement.

Cool Idea - Maybe just a hoop supported by a single rope. It starts stationary, but once it gets hit...

synth3tk

29-07-2009, 18:46

Cool Idea - Maybe just a hoop supported by a single rope. It starts stationary, but once it gets hit...
Like the spider rack in 2007. It was completely motionless until the robots started bumping it. That adds a nice random factor to the game. You know the rack is there, and isn't moving positions, but the actual pieces still wobbled.

EricH

30-07-2009, 14:56

does anyone else cringe at this? it's a good idea, but i'd hate to find my robots frame seriously damaged
Back in 2004, 330 fell off a 10' high bar with no damage. The damage happened the next match, when someone ran the lift while it was locked...

Build the robots strong enough, you don't have to worry too much about damage from things like defense and falling and getting hit by game objects.

buildmaster5000

30-07-2009, 16:45

what if there was a ramp for each robot, different slopes worth different points and changing slopes scoring bonus points, and with 30 secs or so remaining, the field was floded with 4-6 inches of water. the winner being the bot highest on its ramp. adding a challenge, make a way for the robot to attach itself to a cable and winch itself up the ramp...but we would need to have power to undo the cables...

R.C.

30-07-2009, 16:49

It'd be a seriously cool challenge. Robust robots at their best.

I'd be so down for this. But only if there is a traffic cone ;)

-RC

kamocat

31-07-2009, 13:20

Whatever the game is, I'd like the autonomous at the end of the match.

XXShadowXX

31-07-2009, 13:48

Whatever the game is, I'd like the autonomous at the end of the match.

amen to that brother

demosthenes2k8

01-08-2009, 20:15

That'd be quite fun

youngWilliam14

03-08-2009, 08:36

double the field size, add a green alliance

ttldomination

03-08-2009, 12:23

I quite like the idea of the Purple alliance...

delsaner

03-08-2009, 13:59

I quite like the idea of the Purple alliance...

Hmmm... A game with more than 2 alliances does sound interesting...

youngWilliam14

03-08-2009, 14:07

I quite like the idea of the Purple alliance...

but then the chant doesn't work

"RED AL-LIANCE!"
"BLUE AL-LIANCE!"

EricH

03-08-2009, 14:08

Hmmm... A game with more than 2 alliances does sound interesting...
I think that you need to read up on the games in the late 1990's... Especially before 1999. Then extrapolate...

delsaner

03-08-2009, 14:17

I think that you need to read up on the games in the late 1990's... Especially before 1999. Then extrapolate...

I'll check them out. Now that I think about it, it could see some problems with a 3+ alliance system. Sorry for bringing back the idea...

Stephen of REX

03-08-2009, 16:15

You know what would be frustrating? If there was a bar or overpass object on the field lower than the maximum robot height. Teams would have to innovate to make their robots able to scrunch down.

EricH

03-08-2009, 16:44

You know what would be frustrating? If there was a bar or overpass object on the field lower than the maximum robot height. Teams would have to innovate to make their robots able to scrunch down.
Or expand... See 2000, 2001, 2003. Frustrating? Only if you planned to use the ramp in a traffic jam.

Robert Cawthon

03-08-2009, 17:18

You know what would be frustrating? If there was a bar or overpass object on the field lower than the maximum robot height. Teams would have to innovate to make their robots able to scrunch down.

Not if it was built lower than the max height to begin with. Out of our team's four robots, we have only built one that came close to max height.

NorviewsVeteran

03-08-2009, 17:21

It wouldn't be that different from 2008 in my mind.

lingomaniac88

03-08-2009, 17:44

With three alliances, a rectangular field can make it difficult to provide symmetry, which any game would need to make it fair.

Anything above three alliances would probably make matches too hard to keep track of. What would the scoreboard look like?

GGCO

03-08-2009, 18:20

Probably been said before, but...

autonomous mode in the end of the game

Chris is me

03-08-2009, 18:35

but then the chant doesn't work

"RED AL-LIANCE!"
"BLUE AL-LIANCE!"

Or better yet, "Bread Alliance!" as heard in the IRI quarterfinals, cheers mixing. :)

Chrisconn04

05-08-2009, 01:01

I hope next year game is very challenging and it is all based upon the Robot and no Human Player (like this year was). I have no idea of what the game might be i just hope it is fun like the past two years has been. Good Luck to all!!

Stephen of REX

05-08-2009, 09:41

Anyone think that tetras might make a comeback like the slippery floor did?

elvis9110

05-08-2009, 14:07

I hope next year game is very challenging and it is all based upon the Robot and no Human Player (like this year was).

I liked the human player this year, if only because it added another element to scouting. I wouldn't be all that upset to see it go, but I would like to see them add something else that has a team being more multifaceted and not JUST about the robot and if the drivers can control it.

Wayne TenBrink

06-08-2009, 23:13

Karibou

06-08-2009, 23:27

The 2010 KOP is going to include a small laptop computer as part of the driver's station. With that and the camera, everybody could have a video link between the robot and driver. This would open the possibility of a game with some or all of the operation being out-of-sight from the drivers. Maybe capture the flag with a curtain across the middle of the field or something like that.
I don't know about everyone else, but I believe that we ended up scratching our auto-targeting this year because our camera couldn't keep up with the moving targets. I assume that any capture the flag type game would have to have a moving target for variety (i.e. the target isn't in the same spot every time, for obvious reasons)

Also, I hate to rain on a lot of parades, but games that prevent the drivers from seeing the action also block the spectators/scouts from seeing the action, which I'm sure FIRST wouldn't want to do.

I'm still sticking with my sort-different-shaped-game-pieces-into-certain-areas theory. I've been trying to fit the PC into that, but I haven't figured out a good way of doing that.

Of course, the PC might be another optional thing, like the cameras from this year. There could be some really good advantage to using it, but it's not necessary to complete the tasks.

ehochstein

07-08-2009, 12:15

Also, I hate to rain on a lot of parades, but games that prevent the drivers from seeing the action also block the spectators/scouts from seeing the action, which I'm sure FIRST wouldn't want to do.

If there was a curtain across the center the spectators would still be able to see the entire game if they were sitting in the middle of the seats!

Mr. Pockets

07-08-2009, 12:37

I don't know about everyone else, but I believe that we ended up scratching our auto-targeting this year because our camera couldn't keep up with the moving targets. I assume that any capture the flag type game would have to have a moving target for variety (i.e. the target isn't in the same spot every time, for obvious reasons)
Our robot was computing the image so that it would be able to calculate distance and such. I think what Wayne was referring to is a camera where you have direct view of the field, like a video camera. Last year such a feature was pointless as the camera was there for the robot's benefit, while in the sort of game Wayne was talking about it would be there for the drivers benefit.

Also, I hate to rain on a lot of parades, but games that prevent the drivers from seeing the action also block the spectators/scouts from seeing the action, which I'm sure FIRST wouldn't want to do.
(evil grin) Not if they were to paint over the drive teams windows with black paint. The spectators could see just fine (for the most part) but the drive teams sure as heck couldn't. I love the idea, Wayne.

Karibou

07-08-2009, 18:42

If there was a curtain across the center the spectators would still be able to see the entire game if they were sitting in the middle of the seats!

But if you weren't sitting in the middle of the seats? ;) It would depend on the venue a lot.

Though I do like the idea of blocking the driver station windows...that would work. It would be a really chaotic game, though, and the drivers would have a limited view. Entanglement could become a huge problem depending on where your camera was placed, and in the case of a malfunction, the drivers wouldn't be able to see what was happening to their robot and wouldn't know whether to E-stop or not :/

Robert Cawthon

11-08-2009, 10:02

(evil grin) Not if they were to paint over the drive teams windows with black paint. The spectators could see just fine (for the most part) but the drive teams sure as heck couldn't. I love the idea, Wayne.

How about dropping a curtain over the driver station windows and let the drivers drive with a camera for the first 30 seconds (instead of Autonomous mode) and then raise the curtain? Or drop the curtain during the last 30 seconds?

Ryan Simpson

11-08-2009, 12:07

Mr. Pockets

11-08-2009, 16:39

I'm afraid that a curtain or any type of vision impairment will make the game really boring to watch and frustrating to play.

I could imagine the robots going around aimlessly bumping into each other...
But couldn't the same argument have been made against the low traction environment in Lunacy? Lunacy turned out fine despite the chance of all of the aforementioned worries being potential issues. Why would low visibility be more problem prone than low traction?

NorviewsVeteran

11-08-2009, 16:55

But couldn't the same argument have been made against the low traction environment in Lunacy? Lunacy turned out fine despite the chance of all of the aforementioned worries being potential issues. Why would low visibility be more problem prone than low traction?

Lunacy had low traction, a curtain would be no visibility. You can drive on an icy road, but not when your windshield is covered in snow.

Mr. Pockets

11-08-2009, 19:53

Lunacy had low traction, a curtain would be no visibility. You can drive on an icy road, but not when your windshield is covered in snow.
However, if the robot is fitted with a camera and the drive team were able to view the camera's field of view from the laptop included in the KOP wouldn't that mean that effectively give the drive team low visibility, while still giving them enough to feasibly compete?

Karibou

11-08-2009, 22:22

However, if the robot is fitted with a camera and the drive team were able to view the camera's field of view from the laptop included in the KOP wouldn't that mean that effectively give the drive team low visibility, while still giving them enough to feasibly compete?
To continue with the snow/ice/car comparison, driving with just a camera for visibility would be like driving with a windshield covered in snow, but with a little gap in the snow for you to see through. If a robot started malfunctioning, the drivers wouldn't be able to see what was wrong with it. In the case of entanglement (not really a problem in 2009, but it was a big issue in 2008), drivers wouldn't be able to de-tangle their bots, or know when to e-stop.

Ryan Simpson

12-08-2009, 00:28

Cameras are severely limited in how much they can help your vision. First, they only see straight ahead of them. This prevents you from knowing where the rest of the teams are. Also, would you have to have a separate camera for scoring purposes? Then there would have to be another screen for each team to look at so they can tell where the scoring device is. If not, vision for scoring would be poor and scoring would be limited in general. Another limitation is that of defense. If you can't see the other robots, there is no way to stop them from scoring. In my opinion, using only a camera for vision would take some of the excitement of the game and is not worth the added challenge that it presents.

Chris is me

12-08-2009, 01:30

Cameras have the advantage of being able to have a perspective the drivers do not; the camera can see your robot when it is buried behind several others. Moving from FTC to FRC this year, not seeing the entire field at once was a really big change I didn't even think about preseason that really affects the match. Some way, be it a camera or a remote driver station (walkie talkie communication), to change perspectives and get more information would be cool (oftentimes the opposite side of the field was LITTERED with balls that we couldn't see..)

EricH

12-08-2009, 14:46

Tell you what: find an R/C flight simulator. Fly a bit in the various view modes. You'll quickly find that you can't get enough information--the plane's too small, you can't see the ground, etc. Now see if you can fly an R/C aircraft in the real world. It'll be much easier, at least in terms of vision.

You can also do this with a computer-based flight simulator, but it's not as good a demonstration.

Cameras are limited in what they can/can't do. Their angle is limited by the lens, they can't give you very good depth perception (when I'm flying my simulator, I tell when I can land on the runway by whether the shadow is on the runway, and that's the only way to do it reliably), and looking at something else that's important means either changing the angle or zooming out, both of can which affect your vision negatively.

If it happens at all, it will be limited in duration, and hopefully teams get 2 cameras to do it with.

MiniNerd24

12-08-2009, 15:09

(Sorry if this is a repost of another idea)

I think it's gonna be space themed again. Just like the IR receiver in 2007-2008 and the Lunacy game in 2008-2009, i think it'll have something to do with enviroment, moon landing, and even less control over your robot. I just hope there aren't anymore required parts like the wheels from last year, our flooring tore up the wheels pretty badly.

JohnFogarty

12-08-2009, 17:53

We can program in Java ohh so much fun.

JYang

13-08-2009, 00:06

Heard that Dave Lavery got a new pair of swim fins recently...

Water game?:rolleyes:

jmanela

13-08-2009, 08:31

Heard that Dave Lavery got a new pair of swim fins recently...

Water game?:rolleyes:
i don't know, that was already uber discussed last year about what lunacy might be..

Karibou

13-08-2009, 11:47

i don't know, that was already uber discussed last year about what lunacy might be..
Yeah...apparently fish=water game :rolleyes: As much as we would all love a water game, I think it's been proved a million times over that it won't happen* (pressure on the floor, teams unable to practice, electrical issues, etc).

HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that the word "water" will not be used...for all we know, the playing field could be called "the ocean" this year; I wouldn't put THAT past Dave :rolleyes: Fake fish for game pieces, different stations to "skin" (or whatever you do with fish; I'm a clueless vegetarian) them, cook them, and do something else to them...you have to get through them all before time is up...bonus if you get five or more fish through...

I"ll just shut up now before I start designing the game myself >.<

Mr. Pockets

13-08-2009, 12:03

As much as we would all love a water game, I think it's been proved a million times over that it won't happen* (pressure on the floor, teams unable to practice, electrical issues, etc).
You know, despite that, a water game is always suggested (or at least joked about) every pre-season. Oddly we never suggest a game with flying robots. That would be awesome, though would never happen (probably).

Akash Rastogi

13-08-2009, 12:16

I'm hoping for larger robot dimensions actually....It'd be fun to build even larger robots.:D

Travis Hoffman

13-08-2009, 12:49

I'm hoping for larger robot dimensions actually....It'd be fun to build even larger robots.:D

...that don't fit through standard doors. :confused:

Karibou

13-08-2009, 14:47

...that don't fit through standard doors. :confused:
Unless teams wanted to make their robots taller...but I don't know why anyone would want to do that to ther CoG.

Nathan -We just like to joke about it because we know it's never going to happen, but still think that it would be pretty freaking sweet.

Flying robots would be hard...but fun.

delsaner

13-08-2009, 17:47

Flying robots would be hard...but fun.

I wouldnt say actually flying, but maybe a game somewhat like air-hockey, where robots are hovering... (but that may be too similar to Lunacy, regariding a slippery floor)

*sighs* I dont think I can wait any longer to find out the new game... X__X

NorviewsVeteran

13-08-2009, 17:55

*sighs* I dont think I can wait any longer to find out the new game... X__X

only 149 more days!

Rick TYler

13-08-2009, 18:07

How about dropping a curtain over the driver station windows and let the drivers drive with a camera for the first 30 seconds (instead of Autonomous mode) and then raise the curtain?

This is a great idea. Very interesting and a nice twist on the "auto then teleop" model. Sign me up.

ehochstein

16-08-2009, 20:26

You know, despite that, a water game is always suggested (or at least joked about) every pre-season. Oddly we never suggest a game with flying robots. That would be awesome, though would never happen (probably).

http://dvice.com/archives/2009/08/worlds-first-fl.php

Daniel_LaFleur

20-08-2009, 13:26

I'd love to see a game where teams could leave their robot in autonomous mode as long as they want (and change it to teleoperated at any time) gaining a bonus for the duration in autonomous (something on the lines of 1 bonus point for every 6 full seconds in autonomous) and once they set the robot into teleoperated they cannot go back into autonomous.

During autonomous, all inputs from the driver station, except the e-stop and the autonomous/teleoperated switch, would be disabled (including any inputs from an attached PC).

There should be some sort of visual indicator that the robot is in autonomous (such as a green lamp).

This would allow for up to 20 bonus points (assuming we still play 2 minute matches) but would restrict that to what was programmed into software. It would also allow teams to make deccisions, and take controll of their robots, if they saw that the strategy needed to change.

Enigma's puzzle

20-08-2009, 14:53

How about a reversal to make the game more interesting and put greater value on autonomous, Teleop first and then autonomous, that would be a excellent twist in my opinion

Ryan Simpson

20-08-2009, 15:30

How about a reversal to make the game more interesting and put greater value on autonomous, Teleop first and then autonomous, that would be a excellent twist in my opinion

That would also put an emphasis on using a camera for tracking purposes.

Josh Goodman

20-08-2009, 17:32

I like the idea of the camera only viewing. But having it like 15 seconds of Autonomous at the beginning, 2:00 of teleop driving and another 15 seconds of only camera viewing (or dead reckoning) to complete an end game challenge (ie:Climbing a ramp, placing a ball, hanging on a bar, etc).

Autonomous mode at the end just seems difficult for rookie teams. If they wanted it to work right, they would have to get into the right position which could easily be defended or knocked off track.

bobwrit

20-08-2009, 21:55

...that don't fit through standard doors. :confused:

Well.... Our robots typicly don't fit through our doors anyways(Actualy they do, but barely and thats without the bumpers on) :o

I'd still like to see a longer autonomous(20-30 seconds). I don't particulary care where the autonomous is places in the match; I'd just like to be able to do more things during it.

Robert Cawthon

21-08-2009, 09:45

How about and optional autonomous period at the end of the match. Once a team goes back to autonomous, they cannot revert to teleop. Bonus points for time on autonomous.

Karibou

21-08-2009, 11:20

How about and optional autonomous period at the end of the match. Once a team goes back to autonomous, they cannot revert to teleop. Bonus points for time on autonomous.
I"m starting to think that the whole "bonus points on time in autonomous" would be very hard to judge, because I'm not entirely sure how you would judge exactly when a team went into autonomous. Then again, I don't know much about programming/field electronics/how any of that would work.

EricVanWyk

21-08-2009, 11:54

I"m starting to think that the whole "bonus points on time in autonomous" would be very hard to judge, because I'm not entirely sure how you would judge exactly when a team went into autonomous. Then again, I don't know much about programming/field electronics/how any of that would work.

The field already knows when the robot is in autonomous or teleop. Extending this wouldn't be too hard, and could be really interesting.

Joey P

22-08-2009, 01:29

I enjoyed my first year on an FRC Robotics team and i liked the task because i thought that it was a little bit of a challenge but it was fun. Next Year, I hope that it will be something that is a challenge because its more fun that way, but it could be a little less complicated. Either way, I'm fine with what next years game is.

**Can't wait for next year, GO FIRST!**:)

legomasta

22-08-2009, 15:30

Has there ever been a game where a robot was required to jump?

demosthenes2k8

22-08-2009, 20:50

No, but in Raising the Bar teams could earn extra points for dangling from a bar in the field! (Man, I've watched those videos too many times)

EricH

22-08-2009, 22:56

No, but in Raising the Bar teams could earn extra points for dangling from a bar in the field! (Man, I've watched those videos too many times)
Ditto for Coopertition FIRST (2000).

Also note that in 2000, 2001, 2003, and 2006, robots could possibly become airborne if they charged the ramps too fast. (Less of an issue in 2001, due to the ramp switching which end was down...)

RoboMaster

30-08-2009, 20:59

May I note something that you all might already know?
One of the new GDC members is from Cirque du Soleil.
Think of the possibilities!
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=78167

Dantvman27

30-08-2009, 21:01

i wanna see moving playing field parts, either seesaws or a turn table playing field

Rion Atkinson

30-08-2009, 21:02

So... The robots have to swim this year? Or maybe jump off platform spin in the air and the swim to the edge... :D

I'm liking this. Programmers wont. But I will. :D

Scott Bahl

31-08-2009, 02:55

i would like to see somthing to get the robot airborne, a chin-up bar was a good example, but how about somthing new?

fuzzy1718

31-08-2009, 15:06

EricH

31-08-2009, 15:32

How is this for an end game: A seasaw on either side of the field. 2 or 3 (if your ambitious) robots have to balance on it so that the ends of the seasaw and all robots are not touching the ground. It is kind of like ramps but with a co-operative twist to it.
That's interesting, and it's been years since it's been done. Look up the 2001 game, and now apply the seesaw part to an alliance-based game. Hmm... Imagine the fun the FRC GDC could have with THAT! I better stop now, before I go totally evil...

Jon236

31-08-2009, 15:47

2004 - Raising the Bar....we had to hang from the bar for bonus points.......I have a bad feeling that this year the GDC may want us to swing from one bar to another.......'Jungle Gym' style!

Jared Russell

31-08-2009, 15:50

How is this for an end game: A seasaw on either side of the field. 2 or 3 (if your ambitious) robots have to balance on it so that the ends of the seasaw and all robots are not touching the ground. It is kind of like ramps but with a co-operative twist to it.

This is an interesting idea. The teams compete for 1:45 and then in the last 15 seconds they work cooperatively to increase both point totals.

The only part of this that I don't like is that it would necessitate somewhat different scoring rules during the playoffs (or a brand new playoff format altogether).

kristenliz_28

01-09-2009, 16:51

May I note something that you all might already know?
One of the new GDC members is from Cirque du Soleil.
Think of the possibilities!
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=78167

So robots get points for grabbing onto silk cloth and twirling in the air, like circus people, for the last 15 sec ?!?! =P

But seriously, this is what I want to see this year:
-A game where one disabled bot doesn't pretty much doom you.
-A game with no balls, cus I'm running out of perverted jokes about them. ;D
- A game that lets you build a robot that is easy to use for demos later. I don't know about everyone else but we are still using our 06 shooter bot, cus the last two years' bots have been hard to implement at demos.

These are just off the top of my head, I know the first item is me just letting off frustrated steam >.<

HashemReza

13-10-2009, 05:00

JohnFogarty

13-10-2009, 11:35

Maybe we should all just make robots that Blast Metallica again.

Karibou

13-10-2009, 11:46

Maybe we should all just make robots that Blast Metallica again.

That would make my life. :D

Earth day. Right. That pretty much adds a keystone to the going green idea, IMO. The GDC seems to be fond on celebrating anniversaries, and I feel like it all makes sense...

LWakefield

13-10-2009, 11:59

I don't think that they will do anything with Earth Day. I think the see saw end game would be awesome:)

ebarker

13-10-2009, 13:06

I just thought I would mention this:

http://www.earthday.net/earthday2010

The year 2010 is the 40th Anniversary of Earth Day, which will occur come April.

Does this mean anything? Honestly, no. 2010 Also happens to be the year that Mars' opposition with Earth will occur (Opposition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_(planets))), NASA will retire the Space Shuttle Program and replace it with Project Constellation...you get the picture ;)

If it is green-focused, i would think that it has to do with sorting, clearing an area, or moving "waste" from the field into basically a giant receptacle for your alliance. I dunno.

A few days after the Championship in Atlanta 2010 is Earthday. Disneynature will release Oceans (http://disney.go.com/disneynature/oceans/)

I say 'water game'.

But even if the GDC doesn't do a cirque du soleil style water game - you fellow members of FIRST can help explain to the world why FIRST is important.

See this thread (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=78487)

.