Next Year's Game? [Archive]

AcesJames

20-04-2009, 12:11

Human players threw the game this year for most teams, except for those with amazing robots (dumpers such as the winning alliance had), so next year I'd like to see something that relies a bit more on the robot itself. People said driving around would be tough this year as well, and it didn't seem like many teams had an advantage over another, aside from being good at pinning, or the "Bump and Dump", as some called it :p Also, from what I've seen, spectators get bored by Lunacy, and find it hard to follow.

So overall

Less reliability on human player

More reliability on robot itself

Incorporation of something into the game that makes one element of the robot able to swing the game, instead of the HP**

Make the game easier to follow, and more exciting for spectators

Make the game more interesting and challenging for veteran teams*

*I've seen rookie teams, especially at week one regionals, who have a robot in shambles of wire, wheels, and aluminum, while vet teams had a fully functional bot, but looking at the rookie teams at the championships, they were right up there with the oldest vets, who were sorta disappointed with this years game.

**This year was a year where the HP really stood out in the game, and could easily throw it, depending on the alliance and team itself. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but veteran teams weren't impressed.

1086VEX

20-04-2009, 12:26

i'd like to see more robot interaction like we had in 07 and 09 especially between alliance members. im also kinda expecing them to try to level out the playing fiel like they did this year with the wheels and floor.

Jared Russell

20-04-2009, 12:34

I want a barrier in the middle of the field that presents a challenge in crossing, yet crossing it provides a significant game benefit. Say a 12" wall separating the two halves of the field.

I liked that Lunacy took veteran teams outside of their comfort zone. Too often in years prior the veterans would take their drive base down off the shelf and not have to think about it. Even in 2004 when there were steps, many teams really had no problems if they couldn't climb them.

typharn91

20-04-2009, 12:34

i think they should do something with less human playering would be nice a bar would be nice and maybe something were a couple team s might make a robot with a drive train similiar to the cajuan crawler i think that would be awesome

and i would like some defense would be nice they added it again this year but not that many teams saw it as important an di think if either of those alliances had soem D they coulda taken out the best scorers on thier opposing alliance in the finals

A_Reed

20-04-2009, 12:49

Go the opposite direction with the flooring....VELCRO!

If the bond is strong enough it will provide an equally slow and boring game as the majority of Lunacy matches provided. Although I sense the scrapping of a few CIMs in the process of driving:D

I also think they need to bring back the big ending. Weighed appropriately to the rest of the possible points. Something that not everyone can do but at the same time does not require a substantial weight requirement to accomplish (i.e 2007s "Rampbots" ). I am thinking more like 2003, king of the hill--it was a fight to keep position and some teams specialized at this task with suction and brakes-- and 2004, the chin-up bar--limited positions on the bar, not every robot specialized at the task, but still did not req. large weight cache to be set aside for it either.

The 2006 bonus was alright, it did not require specialization but it was also no contest when getting up to the top of the ramp, they were on opposite ends of the field. the only challenge was getting 3 on 1 ramp.

Basically I think if they do include an endgame it should:

-limit the space to five, this creates competition for space and provides an advantage to the alliance who gets there more efficiently.

-Make it simple enough for rookies to complete/accomplish while also making it challenging.

enough rant, an idea popped up.

Playing off of 2004, you take the bar and you literally raise it, at the beginning of the match is starts at 5', until you hit the 1:30 mark then it starts to rise at a constant speed up to the 10' height at the 1:00 mark, continuing up to 15' with :30 left in the game. You would have to weigh what you can do on the floor against what you can do if you hang and at what point you would have to cut bait and leave.

Scott Carpman

20-04-2009, 12:52

I'd like to see a return of the triangle, it's been 5 years since Triple Play.

Andrew Schreiber

20-04-2009, 12:52

A more 3-D field. 2004 with the chin-up bar and the steps was cool. Even if we just had a grid of 2x4's across the middle 10 feet of the field it would force teams to develop a way of crossing no man's land. (Walker bots anyone?)

A reason to change robot orientation (I mean similar to flop bots but on command instead of only once)

No More Bumpers

CAN utilization on the Jaguars.

No more penalization for excellence.

Multiple game pieces. ex, Red alliance has to score tetras, Blue Alliance has to score Bins. Green Alliance has to score soccer balls. Force teams to come up with multiple manipulators in a year or a very general purpose one.

Three 2 team alliances. We seem stuck on 2 teams, mix it up a little. This won't change the number of matches at all for eliminations, just instead of 8 alliances we have 12 but only 1 pick each. (Serpentine debate ENDED!)

A game piece that is readily available and not too expensive.

No more exotic flooring, stick with carpet, most teams already have carpet to practice on.

Less reliance on a single supplier to provide the wheels.

Breakout boards for the CRIO that don't look like they will explode if a dog sneezes.

Driver stations that are reliable.

No judgment calls for refs or inspectors. (G22 was, in my opinion, up to the discretion of the refs entirely)

No more attempts at "leveling the playing field"

More support for struggling veteran teams instead of the constant mantra of "Start new teams" we need one of "Support the existing base"

I might come up with more later but for now I would say I have a short list :)

typharn91

20-04-2009, 12:56

Playing off of 2004, you take the bar and you literally raise it, at the beginning of the match is starts at 5', until you hit the 1:30 mark then it starts to rise at a constant speed up to the 10' height at the 1:00 mark, continuing up to 15' with :30 left in the game. You would have to weigh what you can do on the floor against what you can do if you hang and at what point you would have to cut bait and leave.

i think going off that i dea though you would also have to have diff point values for when you got on the bar or instead of making it raise up do a three level bar like the goals in '06 have two low ones 8"-10" and one high one like 12"-15" and off corse the higher would be owrth more points but could only fit 1 robot and teh two lower ones could both fit two

MrForbes

20-04-2009, 13:01

Before Kickoff, some people on my team were talking about an underwater game

Thats a different thing (http://www.h2orobots.org/aaindex.htm), but put on with a lot of help from a FIRST team. I'll be there, give it a try if you can! June 12-14 in Phoenix.

Next year's game? hmmm...it would be nice to have non-spherical game pieces, but having them move fast is also nice for the spectators, so round might be the best way to go because it's so easy to make balls fly.

It's tough to make a non-flat playing surface that a kit bot will be effective on.

BPetry234

20-04-2009, 13:02

pyr0b0y

20-04-2009, 13:08

I think FIRST needs to start using non-spherical game pieces. A couple years back they had a non-level playing field and that was challenging. My favorite would be an underwater challenge; as cool as that would be, I doubt it could happen for 2010, but would probably be the most exciting!!!

A_Reed

20-04-2009, 13:09

Dave Lavery came by the 234 pit and signed an a mock up of the trailer that will be auctioned off at the IRI. He put his name and "See you on Mars."

Could FIRST be having a new regional or is this the first teaser for 2010...

How about the possibility of a non-uniform rough surface, rocks (small ramps with velcro on the bottom) that are randomized before the match representing the possibility of different landing sites. I know it's themed but it has potential.:rolleyes:

I think FIRST needs to start using non-spherical game pieces. A couple years back they had a non-level playing field and that was challenging. My favorite would be an underwater challenge; as cool as that would be, I doubt it could happen for 2010, but would probably be the most exciting!!!

Would the Aquarium be used for the Championship.

Andrew Schreiber

20-04-2009, 13:16

Dave Lavery came by the 234 pit and signed an a mock up of the trailer that will be auctioned off at the IRI. He put his name and "See you on Mars."

Could FIRST be having a new regional or is this the first teaser for 2010...

Actually, yes, 2010 will have the first Martian Regional, it will be co-sponsored by NASA and the ESA and be held at Olympus Mons. Registration for this new regional will open with the rest of the events. Due to long commutes however teams will be unable to compete in other events next year should they attend this event. Also, volunteer registration is being handled differently for this event, it is already open and waiting for volunteers (http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/participate/sendyourname/).

By the way, I apologize for this but I figured I could have some fun with my 500th post :)

Ian Curtis

20-04-2009, 13:20

Actually, yes, 2010 will have the first Martian Regional, it will be co-sponsored by NASA and the ESA and be held at Olympus Mons. Registration for this new regional will open with the rest of the events. Due to long commutes however teams will be unable to compete in other events next year should they attend this event. Also, volunteer registration is being handled differently for this event, it is already open and waiting for volunteers.

They'll run awfully behind schedule, as the the volunteers won't show up for another 2 years! (http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/mission/overview/)

Tyler Hicks

20-04-2009, 13:40

FIRST is so crazy about safety, so I can guarantee that the game will not involve water. If a robot happened to break, then that would be a huge safety hazard. Water can destroy a bot and that is not what FIRST wants.

Wayne C.

20-04-2009, 13:45

OK- we do this every year....

what I want to see is a game that involves the following

1. greater use of sensors in robot function
2.manipulating an object and placing it horizontally through a hole- maybe blindly
3.the ability for robot interaction to change score
4.no penalties for high scoring performance
5.the ability for robots to descore others
6.few restrictions on robot design- unlike this year's dance of the refrigerators

for a game piece- CLOWNS- there I said it again......

(search out "Send in the Clowns" for a game we came up with years ago)

Zach226-PRLead

20-04-2009, 13:59

BATTLE BOTTS!!!! LOL i know its against Gracious Professionalism but in light of the War in the middle east, i think we need robots with flamethrowers and chainsaws to replace the men on the front line!

Tyler Hicks

20-04-2009, 14:00

For the past few years, it has been a flat terrain. I think the game is going to be all about climbing over or going under obstacles.

MrForbes

20-04-2009, 14:01

yeah, I mean, who ever heard of a flat crater? they're supposed to be curved up at the edges

billbo911

20-04-2009, 14:10

EricVanWyk

20-04-2009, 14:10

I want a game piece that is readily available and interesting - how about a nerf (or other readily available foam) football?

As for terrain, I'd like something that is visually impressive to conquor. "Ice" didn't really do it for me. Maybe "logs" or "debris"? A grid of 2x4's could make for some interesting drive trains, especially if they were of varying heights.

EDIT - In response to Mr Bill - how about optional autonomous? You choose how long your robot is in autonomous (up to the entire match), and accumulate bonus points (somehow) for it. Maybe we bring back the pressure pads and have the drivers stand on them to be in autonomous.

Boydean

20-04-2009, 14:25

I would love to see the return of the Autonomous Bonus. After all, we are building Robots, Robots that can be operated as a Robotic system.

I would also like to see an end of game task with a bonus as well.

I agree, extra autonomous points would be handy. Or just something that trigger something early in the game like in 2004(FIRST Frenzy).

I would also agree that seeing a more 3-D playing field would be good. Less just moving around, and more having to get up and over stuff.

Dan Petrovic

20-04-2009, 14:30

A game that...

...doesn't involve containing a surplus of small gamepieces within the robot. This is just so we avoid refridgerator robots.

...requires a single, simple robot function that relies more on strategy and driver skill than robot design (2005 and 2007).

...has a balance in points earned in autonomous, teleop, and end game (2008)

...has ever-changing optimal scoring opportunities (2005, 2007).

...has game peices that teams can easily make themselves (2005).

David Sherman

20-04-2009, 14:55

I feel that FIRST should return to carpet being the main floor. It reduces cost for teams in making practice fields and for FIRST in making the competition fields. The game needs to be much more spectator friendly, being able to tell what is happening on a basic level for people who aren't in FIRST. I agree on the less restrictions, this year the robots were forced into a limited number of configurations. It would be nice to see the return of size and weight classes like in 2006 Aim High. Human players should not be able to win a match for a robot that can't score, and be the majority of offense in the match. Maybe have one robot have a secondary goal attached such as the trailer per alliance while also having main goals in the field. Have a recyclable scoring piece, too often was the action limited or stopped due to a lack of orbit balls on the field. Autonomous mode having a task to give a team a greater advantage at the beginning of match such as 2004. Have three scoring type pieces, one being a sphere (ex 2006) as the main piece but worth the least. Have a square like piece that is limited and gives more points or some sort of bonus. The third piece being a triangle like shape that would behave similarly as the square piece scoring wise. The sphere being recyclable throughout the match and the other two pieces being limited in quantity and possibly time at which they can be played. Keep the penalties to a minimum and they should not throw the match heavy in either direction. Have goals accessible by navigating over a different type of terrain for each different goal. An example of this would be a hole above the player station at each end, a ramp or pull up bar used to bring the robot up to score the other piece and at each corner a place for the third game piece. Also please lets have a cheap and easily accessible set of game pieces, my vote Nerf balls!:D

EricH

20-04-2009, 15:10

Optional bumpers. Please.

Failing that, I'll take bumper rules that are crystal clear from Kickoff.

The readily available game piece is a great idea. Could that return?

Oh, and could the GDC keep Dave, Aidan, and Bill from dropping hints for a year?

Vikesrock

20-04-2009, 15:13

Oh, and could the GDC keep Dave, Aidan, and Bill from dropping hints for a year?

Too late (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=852218&postcount=19)

EricH

20-04-2009, 15:18

Too late (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=852218&postcount=19)
Nah, those are old hints and don't count. Amethyst was 2005, banana and clownfish are standard Dave gags from year to year (Havabanana Productions does the game animation each year...)

JoeyTNT280

20-04-2009, 15:27

Yay I'm not the only one who found the 15 point Super Cells to be too much power for the human players. I would love to see more originality. This years game had very few ways to do things well it was either Archimedes' Screw or a step up with bands of some sort there were far too many robots with a design that I had seen before.

DarkFlame145

20-04-2009, 15:36

I would like to see:

-3 Alliances, 2V2V2. It would make things more interesting and different.

-Some kind of an hazard in the center or staggered around the field.

-Autonomous points please, something that will let us be real creative with auto. mode.

-No more balls, no more tubs, nothing round...... maybe bins again? It's been a while since we have had bins.

-Rules that wont limit how we can build.

-Something that is really fun to watch from the stands.

-Or maybe a combo for a few games like; In Auto mode you can take a stack of bins (already loaded) to an area of field , then drop them (while still being stacked). One robot has a trailer attached to it while another robot has to stack bins on it. The other alliance and knock/remove the bins from the trailer. Then for bonus points at the end the robot with the trailer must climb a steep incline and park the robot on top.

Vikesrock

20-04-2009, 16:00

Nah, those are old hints and don't count. Amethyst was 2005, banana and clownfish are standard Dave gags from year to year (Havabanana Productions does the game animation each year...)

I knew about the banana and the clownfish. The amethyst was the one I was missing, that was a bit before my time.

BPetry234

20-04-2009, 16:14

They wouldn't ever do an underwater game just because of where would you do it? Most regionals are played in high school or college gyms that wouldn't be able to hold up the massive amount of weight of a pool. Plus think of the cost of that much water and then what would you do with it?

It's easier just to stick to the ground.

I love the idea of uneven game fields. Ramps, holes, whatever. It really adds complexity to the game if lets say you have carry a large game piece around to score.

Chicken_Combo

20-04-2009, 17:19

Would be nice to see some more autonomous oriented challenges, as well as less impact from the human players....

Janucik

20-04-2009, 17:26

I like the Ideas of a feild that gets randomly changed for each match and the 2v2v2(even though this would make getting stuck with partners that are unmoving or break harder on the teams aligned with them).

My biggest wish is that autonomous scoring means something. I realy liked seeing bots that scored in auto even if they missed half and i think the should have been rewarded for that rather then get the same that they would have in tele.

EricH

20-04-2009, 17:35

2v2v2 would probably result in 4v2.

A little story that has been told before:

In 1998 (the last year of 1v1v1), there was an interesting occurrence. Top seeds on Friday didn't make it into the elimination rounds. None of them. FIRST started examining the matches and noted that the two lower-seeded teams were ganging up on the higher seed and causing them to lose. This could not be shown to be intentional, by the way, but was what was observed. 2v1 sound fair? (Well, unless you get 67 or 71 or 217 as the 1, but even then...)

So in 1999, the announcement was made that since collusion could not be prevented, it would be required. Meet the alliance system!

dman14

20-04-2009, 17:57

How about auto at the end of tele-op? That would make a different challenge, and it can have a strong auton/endgame in one.

commodoredl

20-04-2009, 18:13

I'd like to see a bonus worth quite a bit (30-50 points) in the form of some object that can be possessed by a team throughout the match, and that would be awarded to the alliance possessing the object at the end. To balance the score, a team holding the object could be unable to score points for the main objective. This could allow for a Capture the Flag element for the game.
It would also force teams to choose whether to design their robot to score, hold the bonus, or both, and strategize about when to stop scoring and grab the bonus.

Also, return to the auto-bonus, end to convoluted bumper rules, and a carpeted surface please.

s_forbes

20-04-2009, 18:15

How about auto at the end of tele-op? That would make a different challenge, and it can have a strong auton/endgame in one.

Neat idea, but I think it would result in an anti-climatic ending for a lot of matches. The last few years have all had end-game bonuses that sometimes require desperate maneuvers from the drivers, and it makes for exciting endings.

For next year's game, I really want to see something other than a flat field. It's been too long since the last time we had field elements to climb on.

smurfgirl

20-04-2009, 18:22

The Championship may be over, but we still have several months left for offseasons- it's not over yet! However, if we're going to start thinking about next year so early on, I'll throw in what I'd like to see. I generally like games where strategy is very important to gameplay. I'd also like to see some task or game bonus that is very difficult to complete and carries a very high value or multiplier.

Chexposito

20-04-2009, 18:22

I think there should be moveable obstacles, like if they did it this year, it would be a fake boulder and you could move it to slow others down. I liked the moving goals, but what if they made it where there the entire goal would be movable, like you could move it to your teams side for sight advantage, or play keep-away. not like lunacy, but make a part in the kit where you can quickly attach or release, or make your own. We could do a terrain event if there where more advanced chassis parts.
An obstacle course would be cool. and you have to move varying weights to your teams goal area. Make some surfaces rotate and others slick others move in one direction (conveyor belt). maybe a beginning and end autonomous. Beginning, get to a goal area for points, end get to your starting area. Light playing objects are too easy, Round is too easy, but the effect of a ball able to roll everywhere is nice. Maybe a ball bearing surface on the objects, like a mouse wheel, except a lot more.

A year where wheel's are not allowed!!!!!!!
Like legs, hovercrafts, etc.

No more constrained to bumper space, arms make it more fun.

Lunacy was too boring. Overdrive was awesome, you could really get into it and the game was usually a very close score.

Thing2_1723

20-04-2009, 18:36

One of our coaches thinks that this past year was jsut camera practice and that this coming year is gonna NEED the camera to perform the task.

Personally, I dont have any preferences of what I think should be done, but it should be something that makes people think not just outside the box, but outside the box that the original box is in.

Zack247

20-04-2009, 18:38

A few things:

-You should be able to win the match by preforming perfectly (with the robot alone) in the bonus. Im a real fan of the 2007 bonus. Getting two bots on top of another was great. If you pulled it and got those 60 points the game was pretty much over.

-Human player fouls should never cost the robot and alliance partners the match. On more then one occasion, including with us, I saw human players get penalties for small things like putting the tips of your fingers across the appropriate plane that cost the entire alliance the match. Im not sure of the solution but it needs to change. Maybe asking teams to have several human players ready and having teams switch when one commits a penalty.

-I loved the defensive aspect of Lunacy. Truly you should be rewarded for creating a great and powerful drive trains. There should never be a hitting penalty and always have bumper rules.

There are lots of things that they can do. I don't want to suggest specific pieces for the GDC to make but I hope they can follow these basic concepts.

ratdude747

20-04-2009, 18:46

i would like to see:

jaguars with CAN enabled
no more "mandatory" wheels
return of the giant CIM/gen 2 gearboxes/more than 4 cims allowed- let battery life limit teams, not rules
more durable game pieces- no 03 bins (i heard they broke all the time), no 97/07 pool rings (constantly getting popped), and definitely no 09 orbit balls that break when you breathe on them
along with that, a flooring that is more durable- during traction/slip tests, we were powdering the fiberglass regolith)
no more penalties for being good
less restrictions on bumpers- this year's were a big pain...
allowance of other, non MK batteries
targets not mounted on opposing robots- the camera can only go so fast
more emphasis on defense- like 06
size classes like 07
hybrid mode (minus the bad IR boards of doom)
and a DS that doesn't die upon actual use

i think this would make a better game

i know some of you disagree, butthat why it's a forum, we can discussthis stuff

595294001

20-04-2009, 18:51

I would say, the big thing I would like to see is more auto. Lunacy barely had any bonus for good programming, which means a good portion of many teams became irrelevant.

Also, I would like to see a challenge, with arms and shooters, maybe a really high goal, or maybe a bar that was spring loaded way up..... *Looks up* that would release a bonus object (or maybe a flood of small scoring objects), it would be a cool bonus and encourage arms simultaneously.

Also a more strategic game would be good (triple play was nice). And the humans were way too powerful

But most importantly:

- MORE AUTO

Josh Goodman

20-04-2009, 18:59

Definitely less focus on camera like sensors. Yes, I know FIRST is extremely proud of NI's camera this year, but to be honest, with many cameras in years past, not only is it hard for most teams to calibrate, but the lighting is never the same from competition to competition.

I agree about multiple game pieces. For example (a mix between 2009 and 2007) shooting balls into a movable goal but for extra points, lift the goal up 2' at the end of the match. Or hurdling, herding, or lapping in 2008.

No more than 3 alliances. Think about the controversy this could cause with 2 alliances that have close teams on it. It becomes a 2 on 1 and in my eyes, strategy from the beginning that is trying to take down 1 alliance and not necessarily win is smart, but non-GP.

And finally....please. More freedom. As someone else said in this thread earlier. No more refrigerator bots.

bigbeezy

20-04-2009, 19:01

I really like what people are saying about making the game "3D."

The hanging bar would be sweet, someone mentioned either a slowly rising bar, or multiple height bars that would be cool and challenging.

FTC was cool this year with the uneven floor. Maybe we have hills in portions of the floor that would be difficult to go over and if you could its faster and easier to score; but to keep it simple for rookies and not as "elite" teams, they can drive around the hills and still compete. Or better yet those teams could have another way to score that would have simplier terrain to traverse.

I say bring back the Tetra!

Shelabot

20-04-2009, 20:18

I have to agree, a more 3-D terrain would be very exiting... maybe a feild simulating moutinous terrain? I like that idea! Perhaps 2011?

Though I do agree with the game designers that bumpers are good. Perhaps they should merely be... optional?

nahstobor

20-04-2009, 20:22

one word: Carpet

lbl1731

20-04-2009, 20:26

One rule: no wheels allowed.

Jrock0793

20-04-2009, 20:29

I think something like Laser Tag would be really cool. it would be a challenge, but it would be really cool to see what kind of robots people would come up with and what kind of terrain the designers would make for the playing feild.:D

ShadowNinja

20-04-2009, 21:23

Well i think human players should be more of the game..maybe have them go against the robots...lol....well maybe something with paintball guns,,,,underwater,,,,floating....hovercraft maybe?

Duncan Macdonald

20-04-2009, 22:00

I would like to see the return of a meaningful autonomous where points are earned, with a bonus for the team in the lead. Spinning in a circle is not exactly hard. Let the programmers do their thing.

ehochstein

20-04-2009, 22:50

Something where there are smaller blocks that you have to build up to make bigger blocks. Which ever team has the bigger structure wins, and each alliance can also picks up balls to shoot at the opposing team's structure. In between the two there is a short wall that stops robots from switching sides.

Pat McCarthy

20-04-2009, 23:17

I'd like to see a game piece that is nearly a cube, but with one dimension a few inches longer than the others. I would also like these game pieces to weigh at least 4 pounds each.

The return of friction to the majority of the field as well as to the robot locomotion system.

A game in which large manipulators are necessary. I also want to see robots being allowed to expand outside of their starting configuration like 2004 and prior, as long as out of bumper zone contact isn't penalized for incidental contact. (I love large unfolding manipulators)

Like them or not, I think bumpers are here to stay for the foreseeable future though.

bobwrit

20-04-2009, 23:22

[Compleatly_off_but_entirely_necissary] Water Game? :D
Battle Bots?
Allowence to put speakers on robot's?
[Compleatly_off_but_entirely_necissary]

I'd like a 25-30 second autonomous where there is a bonus or multiplier for scoring.
Also, Less focus on the human players, A LOT less focus.
Longer lasting batteries
No bumpers(I mean, it'd make matches a bit more fun to watch)
Non-Round shaped Game objects(Inflatable cube?)

jholman

21-04-2009, 00:04

Overall I liked the basic concept of the game but it had several flaws.
A few things I enjoyed from this year:
1. A return of defense. Though most of the big elimination alliaces didn't rely on this much, many matches were won with defense.
2. Way less robot penalties. I hated all of the touchy penalties in 2008. (Although HPs cost many teams this year wins due to simple mistakes).

Things that need to be changed:
1. Way less HP importace. As a HP I cosistantly scored 1/4-1/3 of my alliaces score and I'm only average. Also HPs had way too much importance with the end of the game bonus.
2. More attonomous please.
3. Optional bumpers.
4. Please don't limit our drive train again. This takes away so much diversity between teams.
5 Just stick to carpet. Our team had no way to test our robot on a comparable surface this year because there was no way we could afford the flooring.

Heres what I think would be a good game.
Have a game field with a 5 ft. wid ramp run across the middle. On each side of the field there are 2 bins for each alliace. The robots would try to collect an assortment of game pieces such as round nerf balls, nerf footballs, and some sort of cube object and deposit them in thier bins for points. At the end of the match robots could try to move the bins across the field for extra points along with battling for a position on the ramp.

Just my thoughts

Rick TYler

21-04-2009, 01:49

I want a barrier in the middle of the field that presents a challenge in crossing, yet crossing it provides a significant game benefit. Say a 12" wall separating the two halves of the field.

This is EXACTLY what I was thinking. Game objects are on side A, scoring spots are on side B, there is a substantial barrier in the middle. I was thinking of a 4x8 on edge, but 12 inches is OK too.

Or, a wall across the field three feet tall, with a steep ramp/bridge over it on both ends, and a tunnel through it right in the middle. Either go short or climb well -- either will do.

Akash Rastogi

21-04-2009, 01:52

Autonomous mode: Robot opens bag of ice
Tele op: Put ice yogurt and fruits into blender and make smoothie
End Game: Deliver smoothie to human player

Whoever downs the smoothie first wins.

Jreed129

21-04-2009, 01:58

I would like to see:

- multi-level & multi-surface playing field
- multi-object scoring
- moving goals
- less human player
- robot being used to gain access to different levels/heights (2007 end game)

last and the one that most likely won't happen:

- robot interaction that drivers won't know about that determines something in auto that goes into effect in end game (roulette scoring bonus/multiplier)

This would make it harder to tell who is really going to win. This past year if a team was wining by an outrageous amount (100-20) you could kind of guess they were going to win but but with closer scores at the end of a match (70-60) with human error in real time scoring teams could have pulled ahead which makes the win more exciting.

Nawaid Ladak

21-04-2009, 02:24

Game Piece: Construction Cones
Game Field Elements: Jersey Barriers

Bring back the rules from 04 (no bumpers, and wedges were allowed)

prety much the opposite of the things i listed in the lessons learned, the genitives thread

Robert Cawthon

21-04-2009, 09:30

My favorite would be an underwater challenge; as cool as that would be, I doubt it could happen for 2010, but would probably be the most exciting!!!

There's another competition for that. Let's stay on dry land. (Preferably carpet.)

1086VEX

21-04-2009, 13:03

what if they set it up so you couldnt actually see the field and you used the camera to see where you're driving? it would be an interesting challenge and something that FIRST hasnt done before.

Rick TYler

21-04-2009, 13:19

what if they set it up so you couldnt actually see the field and you used the camera to see where you're driving? it would be an interesting challenge and something that FIRST hasnt done before.

This is a fun idea. Bring full teleoperation to the competition -- control delay built in, operators have limited vision, and random changes are made to the environment. For example, have opaque control stations and a field that contains field elements that are moved around randomly just before the match starts. Almost any game could work, but I think something skilled and intricate (Triple Play) would be better than a skill and volume game (Aim High, Lunacy).

Having a control delay built in, especially a variable control delay, would put a premium on autonomous robot routines outside the autonomous period. It would also take sensor use to a new level. Interesting approach.

Justin Montois

21-04-2009, 13:22

I think there is something to take from this year in terms of designing the "perfect" game as well as things to never bring back again. I'd like to see..

1) Never penalize a team/alliance for doing well (G14)

2) Allow human players to introduce game pieces and in some cases do it strategically, but don't allow them to score. This is a ROBOT competition.

3)Strategy this year was huge and I think it's necessary for a good game. Avoid creating a simple dominant strategy, give teams flexibility.

4) Auton bonus. Simple as that

5) Probably unrealistic, but look into a bigger field. The massive tie-ups this year and in '08 brought the games down.

I'm looking forward to '10 already.

MrForbes

21-04-2009, 13:41

This is a fun idea. Bring full teleoperation to the competition -- control delay built in, operators have limited vision, and random changes are made to the environment.

Hmmmm...sounds a lot like a water game (http://www.h2orobots.org/aaindex.htm)! (check out team 17)

DarkFlame145

21-04-2009, 14:40

I dont know about ya'll but I loved the Robo Coach........... mostly because that was my old team's (145 at the time) strong point. Plus it never had a huge chance of teams getting it to work, I mean the CMU Cams (or whatever they where) got what a 3 or 4 year run before being replaced.

coalhot

21-04-2009, 14:50

i second the "- non spherical game pieces" mentioned at the beginning. It would bring out a lot more creativity then we had this year, with many dumpers and shooters.

Just my $0.02

--Philip

Chris is me

21-04-2009, 14:53

They're going to keep the playing field "leveled" somehow. Probably not Regolith again, but something like that in terms of making the veteran teams skip a beat.

I can guarantee you with the economic climate there's not going to be a huge expensive game piece like 2007. Simple will be the name of the game, and inexpensive ramps and goals will be used over giant spider things.

Logan

21-04-2009, 16:03

Sorry if someone wrote this already, but all me have to do is scan the market for toys that are no longer produced and we will find the game piece for next year.

KRUNCH DUDE

21-04-2009, 16:08

According to a pattern it will be a ball and maybe off road:D

AlexD744

21-04-2009, 16:41

I like the smoothie idea. I'd be human player for that one.:D

carolynn4848

21-04-2009, 17:35

I can't believe that there is already a thread for this... actually, this is FIRST, so I can. I will be back on tomorrow (hopefully) putting up my ideas.

jamie_1930

21-04-2009, 20:22

The one thing I'm excpecting is to see the same flooring. If you look back on past games we always had the same rug, and it was still part of this years game, but I'm thinking will see this low friction surface again or perhaps something with an even lower coefficient of friction. In my opinion it was a little too high for what FIRST was trying to challenge us with, it looked like most drivers were able to adjust quite well even with or without traction control, and we never really saw robots sliding halfway across the field trying to stop.

mikelowry

21-04-2009, 20:50

I like the idea of a 12 inch wall with game pieces on one side and scoring on the other, but what if the wall is taller, say 4-5 feet, and you have to climb over the top and grab a piece and return to your side to score it. and maybe a tunnel underneath that you could crawl through.

Enigma's puzzle

21-04-2009, 22:00

There is a field with a 6 inch wall in the middle, each alliance gets a bin to deposit pieces in on only your side of the field.You get two bots on your side and 1 on your opponents side. You get auton bonuses for crossing the wall, and each piece in possession or scored at the end. during the game you try and put the pieces, a sphere, square, and triangle, into the bin on your side. At the end you get points for the number of robots on your side.

ChrisH

21-04-2009, 22:41

As a twelve-year veteran, with more hours than I care to count here on CD I find this thread amusing. What happened to all the people who wanted a "different" surface about this time last year? Or "something besides balls"?

Just be patient with your new game ideas. Sometime around May 1 Mr. Lavery will post OFFICIAL threads about these sorts of ideas. I know from talking to to several GDC members that suggestions in those threads are all read and taken seriously. Not that they will necessarily use the ideas ... next year. They might wait a couple of years until you forget what you suggested.

Oh and anything Dave says might be a hint, or not. I think he thrives on creating ambiguity.

ChrisH

Rick TYler

21-04-2009, 22:47

Oh and anything Dave says might be a hint, or not. I think he thrives on creating ambiguity.

Maybe.

CCCP

21-04-2009, 22:48

It would be amazing if we had 2 bots per alliance

Nick Lawrence

21-04-2009, 22:50

You 'oughta stop making me lose the game.

-Nick

BenjyPoore

21-04-2009, 22:53

How about 2 separate autonomous periods? One at the start and at the end? Or maybe just one, but it isn't at the beginning.

Nick Lawrence

21-04-2009, 22:57

For kicks, a game where the robot may only score in autonomous mode :)

595294001

21-04-2009, 23:00

For kicks, a game where the robot may only score in autonomous mode :)

Put auto at the end of the game, where you deposit the scoring objects.

A_Reed

21-04-2009, 23:02

For kicks, a game where the robot may only score in autonomous mode :)

Acquire a shooting solution, select an autonomous mode and step back on a rubber pad (similar to 2005) to score through code.

Cooley744

22-04-2009, 01:48

a game w/ less human player interaction... after all, it's a robotics competition! lol

Creator Mat

22-04-2009, 07:38

i think a simple idea would be to have "flying" robots. Make a ramp or something to jump would be really cool. or haveing a step system to jump onto.

I know the danger factor with the ramp would be huge tho (falling 120+ lbs robot not good)

blackiceskier

22-04-2009, 08:56

FTC was cool this year with the uneven floor. Maybe we have hills in portions of the floor that would be difficult to go over and if you could its faster and easier to score; but to keep it simple for rookies and not as "elite" teams, they can drive around the hills and still compete. Or better yet those teams could have another way to score that would have simplier terrain to traverse.

I say bring back the Tetra!

yes its true that the FTC game had diffrent terrain but there was no bonus if they were used. they also did not stop play it was easy to go around and there was no problem with them. it would be nice if they were going to use diffrent terrain in the future to give a bonus if they are used( if the terrain is not a large protion of the surface

SuperJake

22-04-2009, 10:12

I think it would be neat to have a bigger playing field with more robots. Watching the closing matches on Einstein was difficult from the 2nd floor on the far side of the Curie field. Even in some of the regionals hosted in stadiums... from the stands, the field looks really small.

This would also solve the problem of getting too many teams at one regional while still maintaining a good amount of rounds to play. Maybe a 4v4 or 3v3v3.

I also want to bring back the huge rotating beacon lights. They were a pain in the butt to mount and find weight for, but EVERYONE knew which alliance you were on. Either that, or require a lot more LEDs that can change colors to identify an alliance color.

Robert Cawthon

22-04-2009, 10:36

I also want to bring back the huge rotating beacon lights. They were a pain in the butt to mount and find weight for, but EVERYONE knew which alliance you were on. Either that, or require a lot more LEDs that can change colors to identify an alliance color.

I would love to see an LED light, cylindrical in shape or maybe half of a sphere, that would show red or blue, depending on the alliance, from any directions, even the stands. Select a 3rd color for a disabled status and maybe a 4th color to show voluntary autonomous mode.

EricH

22-04-2009, 10:48

I also want to bring back the huge rotating beacon lights. They were a pain in the butt to mount and find weight for, but EVERYONE knew which alliance you were on. Either that, or require a lot more LEDs that can change colors to identify an alliance color.
If those come back, they should be left out of the weight. And have better covers.

In 2003, I was volunteering on Galileo. I'm pretty sure it was the Techno-Ticks that seemed to break the domes, on average, once per match. That may have been due to mounting or driver error, but going under the bar for them meant plastic on the field. My team didn't have that problem, as our light was mounted so it had to go below the frame if we went that route.

Dan Petrovic

22-04-2009, 11:11

If those come back, they should be left out of the weight. And have better covers.

In 2003, I was volunteering on Galileo. I'm pretty sure it was the Techno-Ticks that seemed to break the domes, on average, once per match. That may have been due to mounting or driver error, but going under the bar for them meant plastic on the field. My team didn't have that problem, as our light was mounted so it had to go below the frame if we went that route.

I seem to remember them having their light mounted on a springy platform so that it would dip down as they went under the bar.

I may be thinking of another team, but either way, it apparently wasn't an effective solution.

EricH

22-04-2009, 11:53

I seem to remember them having their light mounted on a springy platform so that it would dip down as they went under the bar.

I may be thinking of another team, but either way, it apparently wasn't an effective solution.
That would be them. Smash! (Unless they did it at low speed, which didn't happen often.) 4 pieces of surgical tubing+platform+light+bar=debris.

wo-bot 141

22-04-2009, 12:13

Tristan Lall

22-04-2009, 12:21

I seem to remember them having their light mounted on a springy platform so that it would dip down as they went under the bar.

I may be thinking of another team, but either way, it apparently wasn't an effective solution.188 had a light on a pivot in 2003, spring-loaded with surgical tubing; it never broke during two regionals and the Championship. We'd just drive full speed (i.e. around 12 ft/s) under the bar, without regard for the light. It never seemed to matter.

If those come back, they should be left out of the weight.I wouldn't really mind if they were part of the weight: everyone would be stuck with them. My bigger concern is that FIRST doesn't pick a model that has a grounded frame (as in 2000–2002).

Jared Russell

22-04-2009, 12:31

NO MORE BUMPERS where did the tough metal on metal go? the bumpers make the robots look like bumper cars. i want to see damage, this way we can see how a team can make repairs in time before the next match. make a robot that can take a good hit. that's what i want to see in next years game. i understand that in 2008 if you didn't have bumpers you weren't going to last long in this game. Bumpers can go.

I would settle for optional bumpers. Give teams the option of protecting their robot (enabling some of the cool construction methods we've seen in the past couple years - there was a reason you didn't see many monocoque or sheet metal robots around in 2003), but also give them the option of eschewing bumpers for aesthetic or gameplay purposes.

However, please keep wedges illegal and restrict contact to the bumper zone (even if there are no bumpers). Otherwise you will see a proliferation of wedge bots because anyone who doesn't have one will be at a huge disadvantage (in most games anyhow).

IceStorm

22-04-2009, 12:46

Optional bumpers. Please.

Failing that, I'll take bumper rules that are crystal clear from Kickoff.

Or have like 5 very experienced mentors given the rules about 2 hours before kick off locked in a room with no technology, then have a special segment during kickoff called ," We're lazy and want to cut the Q&A forum feedback in half, so here are people to ask question that we will answer!"

Enigma's puzzle

22-04-2009, 12:48

I think there should be moveable obstacles, like if they did it this year, it would be a fake boulder and you could move it to slow others down.

What if they threw a couple of track balls on the field that had no scoring opportunity but instead they were just barriers? i would really like to see some sort of nonscoring piece that added to the complexity of the game, they are a kind of monkey wrench, intangible barrier. Or like ringers in Rack and Roll, they become useless barriers after autonomous.

BT987

22-04-2009, 12:48

i dont know what its going to be but i hope FIRST makes up for lunacy and has the best game yet.

Creator Mat

22-04-2009, 14:34

I understand people not wanting bumpers. They can be a hassle to make, put on, and take off. But are they really a limitation in a design aspect? such as our team wanted to do X but because of bumpers we had to do the not as good Y.

MrForbes

22-04-2009, 14:42

One big thing this year was that many teams wanted to make a narrow robot, with a wide harvester at the front, and the bumpers made that impossible.

EricVanWyk

22-04-2009, 15:09

One big thing this year was that many teams wanted to make a narrow robot, with a wide harvester at the front, and the bumpers made that impossible.

This bothered me as well. I wish they had put the low end of the bumper range an inch or two above the moon rock. This way you could have a fully bumpered bot, but potentially have rock entrance for the full 360.

Rob

22-04-2009, 15:16

I wish they had put the low end of the bumper range an inch or two above the moon rock. This way you could have a fully bumpered bot, but potentially have rock entrance for the full 360.

This is fantastic thinking. Not only would robots have had the potential to be more creative, the protection offered by the bumper zone might actually be more effective if it were higher up. This would help prevent robots from tilting towards each other and "butting heads" from fast collisions.

ehochstein

22-04-2009, 15:48

I would just like to quote from Bills Blog I’ve been so busy this past week at Championship reviewing our options for the future with the board of directors, brainstorming with the Game Design Committee (perhaps a water game?), meeting with our major donors, and ensuring everything happening on the fields and in the pits ran smoothly, that I didn’t have any time left over to let you know what I was up to.

EricH

22-04-2009, 15:56

I would just like to quote from Bills BlogI would just like to remind you that the water game is the oldest rumor in FRC, and there is actually another competition for that. Not only is the water game the oldest rumor, it's the oldest one shown to not be practical.

MrForbes

22-04-2009, 16:13

Not only is the water game the oldest rumor, it's the oldest one shown to not be practical for FIRST.

fixed

:)

(still time to sign up for NURC (http://www.h2orobots.org/aaindex.htm))

Tyler Hicks

22-04-2009, 16:45

A really cool game would be a rough terrain field, and a "capture the flag" type objective. that wold be AMAZING!

seriously, drop the water game idea, its getting REALLY old.

KGood

22-04-2009, 17:04

I would just like to remind you that the water game is the oldest rumor in FRC, and there is actually another competition for that. Not only is the water game the oldest rumor, it's the oldest one shown to not be practical.

We're actually thinking about competing in that during the summer, because registration + kit is only $600, but it's going to be really tough.

M.Wong

22-04-2009, 17:19

hurtzmyhead

22-04-2009, 18:04

yea i would definatly like more of a challenge for the programmers next year.

SuperJake

23-04-2009, 07:06

I am entirely sure that #2 will be completely possible in the future with the possibilities of gps and other advanced sensors combined with the CRio.

While the controller may be capable of doing it, the competition would need to move outside to get a good GPS link. Even then, the GPS accuracy with all of that EM and RF interference created by the robots and field equipment would be horrendous.

In a previous game, there were two beacons on the side of the field that you could lock onto with the intention of giving yourself an absolute position on the field for navigation. I don't think anyone used it at that time.

Andrew Schreiber

23-04-2009, 11:01

Two things that I hope will be implemented in any game, together or alone.

1) Water (sucks for electrical! :p)
2) Randomization of field components such as walls, etc. (on a larger scale than what was instituted in '08)

I am entirely sure that #2 will be completely possible in the future with the possibilities of gps and other advanced sensors combined with the CRio.

#2 would be awesome and I would love to do it. Only problem is, most GPS receivers are not accurate enough for use on an FRC field. Oh and there is also that pesky thing about being indoors. (Don't suggest out door competitions, us northerners might be able to take the cold but I think that the CRio might have problems :cool: )

Jake, the beacons were not so much for absolute positioning, they were more for "Are we there yet" positioning. It is also impossible to determine position using two points, you need at least 3.

Robert Cawthon

23-04-2009, 12:15

It is also impossible to determine position using two points, you need at least 3.

It wouldn't be impossible since the playing field tends to be a flat surface. All one would need to do is put both beacons on the same side of the field (separated by a fair distance) so there would be no confusion as to which side of the beacons the robots were on. It would simple triangulation.

Andrew Schreiber

23-04-2009, 12:20

It wouldn't be impossible since the playing field tends to be a flat surface. All one would need to do is put both beacons on the same side of the field (separated by a fair distance) so there would be no confusion as to which side of the beacons the robots were on. It would simple triangulation.

Oh yeah, two knowns two unknowns... I swear, my brain works sometimes.

dodar

23-04-2009, 12:46

All I'm saying is to bring back the pull-up bar and the tetras lol

SuperJake

23-04-2009, 13:06

All I'm saying is to bring back the pull-up bar and the tetras lol

The tetras were a pain because they kept breaking, however I agree with the pull-up bar.

The pull-up bar was a great success because it was something that always got the crowd cheering.

billbo911

23-04-2009, 14:00

Andrew Schreiber

23-04-2009, 14:19

OK, I'm going to swim upstream a bit here. (No, this is not a bid for a water game.) So if you don't agree with my opinion, then we are agreed to disagree.

1) I hope bumpers do stay.

They offer really good protection. No, they are not prefect, but when they are implemented properly, they add considerable durability.
I feel it is an utter shame to see a team spend more than $6000 and hundreds of hours building a robot only to see it ruined in seconds because of a lack of protection. I prefer ::safety:: to ::ouch::
Like the water game, if you want to see a Robot demolition type of competition, there already is a one for that.

My main point is:
2) Bumpers are just another design criteria that needs to be met.

When the Jaguars were introduced, I read literally dozens of complaints about their size. Yet, practically every team found a way to use them. Yes I know, some teams chose to use all Victors. That was a valid design option this year, but it may not be in the future.
If you don't read the rules completely and design a robot and bumper scheme that doesn't comply, don't blame the rules. Every year there a multiple design challenges, bumpers just happens to be one of then.

Now food for thought. How about allowing bumpers to be movable so they could be incorporated into a game piece gathering system?

1) You make a good point, if we want to see robots get destroyed there are competitions for that. My issue is not that I want to see robots get destroyed but that I don't like seeing students not exposed to designing a robust system.

2) Yes bumpers are just another design criteria but would more not be learned by allowing them to be optional? If you use bumpers you may lose some flexibility in design but you gain an additional weight advantage perhaps. Allow teams to decide if the additional weight is beneficial.

Im saying that mandatory bumpers are like mandatory wheels, or mandating that we all have to use 6 wheel drop center with the kitbot frame and a Cim on each side. You know, it is JUST a design requirement, there is nothing wrong with that right? Give teams some flexibility, if we decide that bumpers are beneficial to our play style and our design we can use them, if not then we should have the option of taking a beating.

Herodotus

23-04-2009, 14:20

I'd also like to see bumper's as optional or done away with. Were robots really that badly damaged all of the time before bumpers? Teams just need to build robust robots.

Something I'd like to see in the future, though maybe not next year, is a game involving two robots for each team. One is the normal sized bot we currently build, and another is a smaller vex-sized bot. The big bot deploys the little bot to a sub-field (such either located on a platform above the field or off to the side) and the little bot performs some function to facilitate more scoring for the big bot.

I'd also like to see a unique end game brought back, even if it is just ramps again. Though having to climb a ladder, climb a rope, get on top of a box, or fit into a confined space would be cool.

EricH

23-04-2009, 14:47

I'd also like to see bumper's as optional or done away with. Were robots really that badly damaged all of the time before bumpers? Teams just need to build robust robots.
The worst damage that I can remember 330 taking was in 2004. It wasn't from falling off the bar, either. It was the next match, when we drove our own lift down when it was already down all the way. Broken cable and bent lift resulted. We got it fixed in time for our next match. And yes, we did get into it with other robots a bit.

Andrew Schreiber

23-04-2009, 14:54

I'd also like to see bumper's as optional or done away with. Were robots really that badly damaged all of the time before bumpers? Teams just need to build robust robots.

Yes, some where, I don't have any pictures but if we consider a 120 lb (54 kg) mass moving at 12-15 fps (3.6-4.6 mps) we can find how much energy a single robot has (1/2 *m *v ^2) The numbers aren't small. I recall a couple years ago 68 had their auton reversed and they moved the whole field... These things have a lot of power behind them and can be dangerous.

SuperJake

23-04-2009, 15:04

I'd also like to see bumper's as optional or done away with. Were robots really that badly damaged all of the time before bumpers? Teams just need to build robust robots.

Team 365 in 2002. 'Nuf said.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/14423

Jared Russell

23-04-2009, 15:20

Team 365 in 2002. 'Nuf said.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/14423

The first thing that I thought of as well.

In 2002 and 2003, robots routinely got absolutely demolished. Teams like 365 and 71 (2002) and 312 (2003) really paid a price for their dominant machines.

s_forbes

23-04-2009, 15:31

Team 365 in 2002. 'Nuf said.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/14423

It's hard to tell in that picture, but it looks like their arm/manipulator got bent up. If all of the robots involved in that match had bumpers, would this have turned out differently?

SuperJake

23-04-2009, 15:45

It's hard to tell in that picture, but it looks like their arm/manipulator got bent up. If all of the robots involved in that match had bumpers, would this have turned out differently?

If contact had been limited to the bumper zones and all robots had bumpers, damage like this could have been avoided. Even last year (Overdrive) damage was limited a lot from previous years with the emphasis being that robot-to-robot contact was to take place only in the bumper zone. It was enforced through penalties and lots of people complained.

I feel that the restriction placed on teams this year was less about an interesting design challenge and more about protecting robots. <R08> had some sections that were directed at making a sturdy robot - I'm thinking the one that required the bumper to be fully supported on the back side was a nudge towards making a REALLY sturdy chassis.

While I agree that teams should start out from a strong chassis on their own, there are some that feel that aggressive defense to the point of damaging another robot shouldn't be part of the game. Until there is some sort of agreement between teams, FIRST is handling the dispute by implementing rules that protect everyone as best as possible. This means that rookies build sturdy frames from the start and veterans that need some additional challenges need to accomplish whatever task they are aiming to hit with the additional design burden of the bumper zone.

MrForbes

23-04-2009, 16:00

Herodotus

23-04-2009, 16:19

I seem to recall in the past few years there have been rules about ramming other robots, but this year not. Would you rather have mandatory bumpers, or refs deciding whether or not your driving was acceptable?

Also there was plenty of robot damage this year...the frame piece above the front ball harvester on many robots got bent repeatedly. Our plywood one suffered a crack at a regional, but the oak reinforcement added at champs held up fine.

Yeah, our harvester was also damaged in one of our matches, though it managed to keep working. To be honest I'd rather have restrictions on driving. Allowing teams to build how they want at bumper zone level could lead to some interesting designs (like harvesting from all sides of the bot) and ramming isn't all the amusing to me at least.

That said, I think the worst part about the bumper rules this year was their strictness and inflexibility. The fact that there was the trailer hitch and the non-bumper covered areas surrounding it meant that, no matter what your design was, you lost some area on the front of the bot to bumpers as well. Last year we had no bumpers on the front of the bot and the sides were also somewhat short as we only had to have part of the robot covered.

nlknauss

23-04-2009, 19:22

Would you rather have mandatory bumpers, or refs deciding whether or not your driving was acceptable?

This is a great point. With the bumper rules we have now, robot to robot contact is measured objectively. This is great because it takes a lot of the refereeing out of the game that we had in the past with regards to pinning, ramming, and entanglement.

The games in the past that involved reaching and extending were awesome (2000, 2002, 2004) and I hope the GDC considers an environment close to that for 2010.

Robert Cawthon

24-04-2009, 09:35

The tetras were a pain because they kept breaking, however I agree with the pull-up bar.

How about the game piece being a tetra made out of aircraft aluminum? The teams could make practice ones from PVC pipe.

Ramiro_T

24-04-2009, 13:35

Next year's game should have things that won't be discontinued. Maybe even bring back a few parts and the IFI for lightness and no more digital sidecard malfunctions. Maybe even the van door motor could come back.

TJ Cawley

24-04-2009, 13:44

roboraven15

24-04-2009, 14:08

eschanz

24-04-2009, 14:16

I would like to see bumpers again because that was a big part of what held our bot together, because we were mainly defense. as for gameplay something like death race where you have to drive over icons to aquire things. like a battery to give power to a certin part of your robot so it can do something special. say giving power to extra wheels to go faster and give it more power.
Also have no starting autonomous because that caused a lot of problems at some of the regionals i went to, but have on at the end. lets say its has to go up a ramp by itself so you will have to postion it before time runs out.

Chris is me

24-04-2009, 14:36

i'd like to see the game back to the robot limitations on size like the 2008 season of just starting size rules. the height limitations are what made it hard for teams to "think outside the box" when they had to fit inside of one.

I've heard this complaint a lot, but not many ideas as to waht teams would do if this rule were put back into place.

The rules this year were made to minimize robot penalties. Instead of calling ramming / pinning / intentional damage / entanglement / entrapment and preventing lots of robot manipulator damage, FIRST chose to instead simply have bumpers and no expansion. I think this was to make the rules simpler; I guarantee you that the rulebook would be 10 pages longer and matches would be that harder to judge if the rules weren't there.

delsaner

24-04-2009, 14:47

I really want to see a "capture the flag" type thing to happen. I'm not sure how it would all work out, i have a few ideas though.

A capture the flag sort of game would be very interesting. I am curious about how that would work out.

Also, I would like a game where we did not depend so much on the human player. The human players seemed to have a lot of pressure on them regarding bonus point (aka super cells). Sometimes, the matter of a loss or win was up to the human player. And the human player has the possibility of accidentally scoring on his own trailer (when he fills up the hopper).

dman14

24-04-2009, 14:59

Auton should be worth major points, mabye double/triple score during auto? Make autonomous longer or have bonus for auto during teleop period.

ALOT less human involvment, (mabye like only humans loading robots, OR only robots loading humans).

Not a sphere game element, mabye a football, or a cube structure (like tetras but a cube). Possibly another verion of a stacking game or capture the flag/tug-of-war.

A large view impeding wall across the middle (a curtain OR have smaller holes in it for robots to slip through), as to make it hard to controll robots on the opponents half of the feild (makes for a fun capture the flag game or end game on opponents half of field). That would make a good programming challenge (possibly auton during teleop?).

Last but deffinetly not least, a really exciting end game (like the bar / ramp). Hows about a large game peice or two that can be controlled by an alliance somehow?

Edit: For end game have a bar that is about 6" off the ground, and robots need to be comptely supported by this bar to earn bonus points.

EricH

24-04-2009, 15:00

I think this was to make the rules simpler; I guarantee you that the rulebook would be 10 pages longer and matches would be that harder to judge if the rules weren't there.
I'll guarantee you that the rulebook would be about 10 lines longer and matches would be harder to ref. And yes, I'm from the "Bumpers? What are those?" era, when everyone knew the rules...

...except for some of the refs, but that's another whole discussion. (And the specific incident(s) I'm thinking of were when the bumpers were optional.)

The ten lines would be:
The pinning rule, added to the contact rule.
No high-speed, long-distance ramming, added to the contact rule.

Entanglement already has its rule, as does intentional damage/disable/tipping.

The harder to ref part comes from enforcing said pinning rule and more importantly, the definition of high-speed long-distance ramming.

Jared Russell

24-04-2009, 16:20

Game pieces worth considering (meet price/availability criteria, durable enough and/or replaceable enough for a season's worth of use, and something we haven't really used before):

-Footballs
-Frisbees
-Hacky Sacks
-Empty 20 oz soda bottles
-Slinkies
-2x4s
-Rubber duckies

MrForbes

24-04-2009, 16:38

Game pieces worth considering:

-2x4s

ooooh....using robot parts as game pieces! (yeah we had some 2x4 on our bot this year)

bandducky511

24-04-2009, 16:49

I think it would be amazing if we had pieces (circles, squares, tetras etc) and each alliance had to make a "shape" (Like a square on a tetra or something) that would be randomly chosen at the start of the match. It would even be cool if each alliance had to sort each shape (like squares in one area, circles in another). Also, if each shape was a different color it would be able to let the robots have a bonus during the autonomous. The other alliance could try and prevent the robots from "scoring" or score themselves.

Chris is me

24-04-2009, 17:46

waialua359

24-04-2009, 20:34

Jared Russell

24-04-2009, 21:07

Theme: Blast from the Past.
Aim High Part II!

Change the rules a bit and make it even more exciting. Easily one of the best games ever.

How about 3 targets on top instead of one, with a random flashing light identifying one of the goals. If that goal lights up, its worth more.
Thus, instead of a stationary target, have a stationary target at different locations at different times.

Glenn -

Aim High was definitely one of the best games in FRC's history, and I would LOVE to revisit it at some point. Of course major aspects would need to be tweaked, else you'd see a lot of Evil Machine clones running around :yikes: If there was a way to do high-goal shooting with static scoring I would absolutely love it. And maybe an obstacle in the middle of the otherwise empty field?

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think that Aim High would have been one heck of a different game if it were played on Regolith...

Eugene Fang

24-04-2009, 21:18

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think that Aim High would have been one heck of a different game if it were played on Regolith...

Try climbing up those ramps with rover wheels...

Herodotus

24-04-2009, 22:29

I seem to be the only person who didn't enjoy Aim High. I've always found ball games to be pretty boring. I much prefer having strange and unique game pieces. Some suggestions I've heard before, and some new ones I've come up with.

PVC pipe with steel bearings inside to shift their weight around.
Pool Noodles
Rope(score points by hanging lengths of rope, and I could see some teams designing a robot to actually tie knots so other teams can't descore)
Frisbees
2 liter bottles
rocks, yes, real rocks of all shapes and sizes, score is based on weight (Rubble Rumble?)
flashlights (if they are turned on it is a scoring piece, if it is turned off it is used to "descore" the opponents)
sheets of thin lexan

afowl

25-04-2009, 18:58

I think that something hard to pick up would be more fun, like the thin sheets of lexan mentioned above. How about a game where you have normal pieces and supersized bonus pieces larger than the bot, like something it would take two bots to move?

LWakefield

25-04-2009, 19:50

I would like to see a game where the drivers can't see their robots, so they have to rely on the cameras. I don't know what type of game it would be.
They would have to have some screen at the driver's station.

lingomaniac88

25-04-2009, 19:59

In Lunacy, I liked how the scoring locations were the robots. Something cool would be to make the scoring locations the game pieces themselves. For example, you might have to hang a game piece on an already scored game piece.

Ice Berg

25-04-2009, 20:07

Maybe something with a lot of very small game pieces, like rubber super bounce balls, ping pong balls, or something small that's a cube, like dice.

Maybe something that changes shape like this:

http://www.toysrus.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3499683

Andrew Schreiber

27-04-2009, 13:09

One really cool idea would be to have an "alliance" of an FTC robot and an FRC robot (or two of each) competing in the same game. The FTC robot would have to do some task that enables the FRC robot and vice versa.

OCCRA did something like this this year (VEX robots but the concept is the same) Can anyone who competed comment on how that worked out?

Aren_Hill

27-04-2009, 13:50

My hope would be optional bumpers and also to have the only rules that govern the robot geometry to fit in the size box in starting configuration

fit inside the box at the start, only requirement

GreerD

27-04-2009, 14:13

I liked the strategy involved this year, but I didn't like all the rules governing the robot. I'd personally like to see the return of carpet and no bumpers. I'd also like to see the same sort of scoring on other robots, or something else to encourage more robot-to-robot interaction.

Chris is me

27-04-2009, 14:34

EricH

27-04-2009, 14:46

I think that if bumpers are optional then there should be some incentive to use bumpers on your robot, like if you have bumpers they won't count weight wise or size wise. I'd hate to see a competition with hundreds of dinged, dented, and damaged robots.
2006 and 2007, you got the weight and volume free, just like this year. You just didn't have to use the bumpers. Probably about half the teams used them; maybe more.

A_Reed

27-04-2009, 15:04

I think that if bumpers are optional then there should be some incentive to use bumpers on your robot, like if you have bumpers they won't count weight wise or size wise. I'd hate to see a competition with hundreds of dinged, dented, and damaged robots.

If that is the case for the bumpers then you would have to limit them to prevent them to be used for some offensive purpose, i.e. wedged bumpers to funnel scoring objects into the robot. you would gain an advantage of going outside of the starting configuration at the beginning of the match.

Dillon Carey

27-04-2009, 22:21

-Return of wedges
-no bumper requirements
(I wish)
-less human player
-a raised platform
-square or rectangular playing objects
-less destructible playing objects
-larger playing objects
-fewer playing objects
-robot oriented endgame
-little or no pushing required
(possibly the return of restricted wheels)

bobwrit

27-04-2009, 22:35

Try climbing up those ramps with rover wheels...

I was acualy thinking of something like that, Just to throw something new in...:yikes:

jsasaki

27-04-2009, 23:15

i think
-less human players
-no trailers or something like that
-no round objects
-no punishment on doing good
-giant ramp
:)

andrew348

27-04-2009, 23:18

I've been saying it since 2006 - the return of the rectangle. That last time it was used was 2003.

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

AdamHeard

27-04-2009, 23:25

If contact had been limited to the bumper zones and all robots had bumpers, damage like this could have been avoided. Even last year (Overdrive) damage was limited a lot from previous years with the emphasis being that robot-to-robot contact was to take place only in the bumper zone. It was enforced through penalties and lots of people complained.

I feel that the restriction placed on teams this year was less about an interesting design challenge and more about protecting robots. <R08> had some sections that were directed at making a sturdy robot - I'm thinking the one that required the bumper to be fully supported on the back side was a nudge towards making a REALLY sturdy chassis.

While I agree that teams should start out from a strong chassis on their own, there are some that feel that aggressive defense to the point of damaging another robot shouldn't be part of the game. Until there is some sort of agreement between teams, FIRST is handling the dispute by implementing rules that protect everyone as best as possible. This means that rookies build sturdy frames from the start and veterans that need some additional challenges need to accomplish whatever task they are aiming to hit with the additional design burden of the bumper zone.

ummmmm.... it actually would've made grabbing goals next to impossible if contact was limited to what you propose.

SuperJake

28-04-2009, 08:28

ummmmm.... it actually would've made grabbing goals next to impossible if contact was limited to what you propose.

I'm not entirely clear on what you are getting at, but I believe you are trying to say that in the 2002 game with a restriction on robot-to-robot interaction limited to the bumper zone would make grabbing the mobile goals difficult.

With that assumption in mind, I'll say that last year (Overdrive) was the first year to introduce the restriction on robot-to-robot interaction to the bumper zone with robot penalties linked to contact outside of the bumper zone. Last year's game also had an aspect of the game where teams reached outside of their bumper zone to accomplish a game task. I propose that grabbing the 2002 mobile goals wouldn't be any different in that regard, but that some of the robots in 2002 would be designed differently with the robot contact restrictions in place at the beginning of the season... just as the robots would have to change to include bumpers.

delsaner

28-04-2009, 08:33

I'd like to see a game with a more 3-D field, similar to the FTC game this year. Something involving ramps or hills, but maybe the drivers would have a hard time seeing their robot. Just a thought.
=]

Ryan Caldwell

28-04-2009, 09:08

- Monkey bars (second level of play)
- multiple terrains
- flat sides
- grated center
- banked corners
- simple scoring (on ground)
- advanced scoring (elevated)
- king of the mountain/zone/object (end bonus)
- simple task available to aide advanced tasks
- no defense that can completely shut down scoring (was good this year)

TJ Cawley

28-04-2009, 13:43

EricH

28-04-2009, 13:54

i think a challenge would be having to "think outside the box" while fitting inside one and floating in it too. the idea of this year's game made people think of a water-invloved game. so why not give them one next year? its an idea, not unlike robots on the moon's surface, never tried on a FIRST playing field. it would introduce a greater difference in ideas and designs that would better differenciate one team's robot from another. there are a lot of ways to make a person float. so how hard would it be to make a 120lb robot float?
I guess you've never read the hundred and one discussions on why it can't be done in a FIRST competition. Possible? Yes. Practical? Not on your life.

Note that there is an underwater robotics competition. I don't remember the website offhand, so some of the others who do will have to help me out.

EricVanWyk

28-04-2009, 14:41

How about live ball sorting? It sounds rather lame at first (ha!) but hear me out:

Take the game piece (spheres, cubes, nerf footballs or whatever it may be) and color e.g. half white and half black. The one alliance wants white pieces in goal A, black in goal B; the other alliance wants the opposite. Put the goals on opposite ends.

This does a few things:
Adds a weird twist, could be fun.
Makes the difficulty of vision tasks more intrinsic and less dependent on lighting.
Lots of interesting sort options: presort+hoppers, "turret sort" (change target as pieces line up in the turret), "cerberus sort" (two heads that each remain locked on a target), "belch sort" (change turret speed based on whether or not you want the ball to go in), "driver sort" (only pick up the "correct" color), etc.

A third and fourth unsorted goal may be added with decreased points, to give teams a low-bar achievable target.

EDIT:
PS: Do we really have to debunk water games every time they are brought up? Lets just ignore it or answer it in PM.

Nate Edwards

28-04-2009, 14:48

I guess you've never read the hundred and one discussions on why it can't be done in a FIRST competition. Possible? Yes. Practical? Not on your life.

Note that there is an underwater robotics competition. I don't remember the website offhand, so some of the others who do will have to help me out.

There are several competitions

The one run by a FIRST Team (842) is http://www.h2orobots.org/
Other include:
http://www.marinetech.org/rov_competition/
http://www.auvsi.org/competitions/water.cfm

Scott Bahl

29-04-2009, 20:14

the low friction surface was interesting, but it made it boring to watch becuase the game was in slow motion. also, i hated seeing a match decided by the scoring of a human player! this is a robotics competition, not basketball. another big thing was pinning! how frustrating do you think it was for us teams who spant long, hard hours building a great robot, only to see it being pinned and essentially taken out of the game by a robot nothing more than a drive base!

overall, i would like to see a more exciting competition, requiring more exciting robots(rather than just robots composed of a bunch of rollers).

if the people really want FIRST to expand, they need to make a "WOW!" competition, instead of just a "oh, cool, i guess." competition.

Bertman

29-04-2009, 20:24

Chris is me

29-04-2009, 21:06

mikelowry

29-04-2009, 21:22

I guess you've never read the hundred and one discussions on why it can't be done in a FIRST competition. Possible? Yes. Practical? Not on your life.

Note that there is an underwater robotics competition. I don't remember the website offhand, so some of the others who do will have to help me out.

underwater, yes. But what about floating on top of the water? Boats anyone?

kitfisto92

29-04-2009, 21:35

It may have a triangular or rectangular shaped game piece because it seems to has alternated between spheres in even years (generally [notably 2004, 2006, 2008]) with either a square of some sort (2003 stacking boxes) and tetrahedrons (2005)

Water sounds fun, but wouldn't that technically be an electrical hazard of some sort because of all of the electronics and cRIO on the robots?

ShotgunNinja

29-04-2009, 21:36

Well, I kinda pushed the camera towards the start of this year's, maybe I can try it again...

How about something that REALLY pushes the envelope on getting (A) more dependency on the whole alliance working together instead of the "strongest robot", and (B) more focus on the higher-end manipulator devices?

How about robots lifting other robots? I remember the one year with the innertubes (2-3 years ago), when there was a bonus awarded to an alliance that could stack their alliance's robots, ie. by lifting them up, driving up on top of them, etc. Why not make that a part of the challenge? Requiring robots to lift or shift each other vertically to reach or manipulate the game pieces (Think Overdrive's overpass, hehe) would make for an interesting challenge.

Also, we should keep the camera systems, now that NI and Sun are on board for technical support (and supportive techniques) and some of the first-year bugs with camera synchronization are worked out. I think that the cRIO and all of its capabilities may finally have the chance of really being put to the test (Can anyone say linear accelerometers?) and that yes, this truly is like a whole new (*cough* season) beginning for the FIRST Robotics Competition. With the bugs fixed.

Oh, that might be another interesting thing... Bugs... ...oops, I better stop before this post goes denim. :D

EricH

29-04-2009, 21:45

underwater, yes. But what about floating on top of the water? Boats anyone?
Well, if you can come up with a reasonably cheap, readily portable by a semi, easily cleaned, watertight, easy for a crew of half a dozen to a dozen or so to assemble, quick-filling, quick-draining, easily accessible by people with robots in hand, grounded field, put the schematic in the Game Design threads/forum here on CD. Or a way to waterproof the current field would work. Oh, and you probably want to make sure it's relatively easy to build a low-cost version. Either route you take, I'd like to see it. Just to show that a water game is, in fact, practical beyond soaking the carpet or playing outside in the rain.

I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm just saying that it's going to take some thinking and doing. And if you want to see one, you may wish to relieve the GDC of some of the stress of designing the field...

My ideal game would be to have a game object that isn't so easy to manipulate, like a traffic cone or a traffic barrel. PVC batons or hula hoops would also work. Throw in a common objective that only 4 or 5 robots can do (or only one alliance), and have it at the end of the game. Also a good autonomous objective. Add some terrain that has to be dealt with, like in 2003 and 2004. Bring back the varying box sizes/weight classes from 2007, too. That was really an interesting size/weight year.

Bertman

29-04-2009, 22:16

They're not going to make the game have the same variables every year. This is basically "undo everthing they did this year and make it back to the way I'm comfortable with", which FIRST isn't in the interest of doing. They want no one to be comfortable in this competition, that's where people learn the most.

Actually, I am not thinking of things "I'm comfortable with". I was thinking more in terms of keeping down cost for building practice field and such for those of us that have limited resources, both manufacturing wise and monetarily.

Jared Russell

30-04-2009, 07:28

Andrew Schreiber

30-04-2009, 09:33

I personally would like to see
1. no required wheels or supplier
2. move autonomous to the last 15 seconds of the round
3. no exotic type surfaces
4. no burdensome penalty system
5. continuation of challenging fun
6. Multi-level field

They're not going to make the game have the same variables every year. This is basically "undo everthing they did this year and make it back to the way I'm comfortable with", which FIRST isn't in the interest of doing. They want no one to be comfortable in this competition, that's where people learn the most.

I would hardly say this is undoing everything they did last year.

The required wheels or suppliers is a concern of a couple people I know, plus, some wheels/parts are better suited to play styles, it is just letting us choose. I mean, what if, because Google is a supporter of FIRST we were required to use Sketchup to design our robot. Would you have a problem with that? Same concept with the wheels (Not saying AndyMark had anything to do with the decision)

Autonomous to end of match, hasnt been done before. I think it would be cool to have to figure out where you are and get to another point (randomly chosen at the start of auton of course)

No Exotic Surfaces does not mean "Go back to carpet" it means that we need to have a surface that is readily available to teams and cheap. Plywood, Cement etc. I would prefer NOT to see another game where the flooring for a field costs more than we spend on our robot. (397 builds robots from raw materials and the KOP so we don't incur huge costs in the robot)

4, and 5 were done this year*

A multi-level playing field has not been done since 2006 had its pair of ramps. The ramps were not really integral playing field components like 2003's ramp.

*5 could be argued by some people but let us not get into that debate there are other threads for that.

EricVanWyk

30-04-2009, 10:16

This idea has a lot of potential.

Thanks Jared!

An idea with less potential: Controlled recycling of game pieces. Imagine the "goal" is a hopper of sorts with a "release valve". A team could send a special packet over wifi to release/fire the pieces.

Also, I wouldn't mind the limited return of regolith, if it is more limited. For example, a central contested region. Or, imagine Overdrive with regolith on the ends of the field. I'd just like to see mixed-mode.

Rob

30-04-2009, 11:45

I think this is a fantastic concept as a high level idea to build a competition around. I think This is probably the best game idea I have heard described in a long time. Add in some sort of auton mode to release game pieces and some spectacular endgame action and this is pretty cool!

How about live ball sorting? It sounds rather lame at first (ha!) but hear me out:

Take the game piece (spheres, cubes, nerf footballs or whatever it may be) and color e.g. half white and half black. The one alliance wants white pieces in goal A, black in goal B; the other alliance wants the opposite. Put the goals on opposite ends.

This does a few things:
Adds a weird twist, could be fun.
Makes the difficulty of vision tasks more intrinsic and less dependent on lighting.
Lots of interesting sort options: presort+hoppers, "turret sort" (change target as pieces line up in the turret), "cerberus sort" (two heads that each remain locked on a target), "belch sort" (change turret speed based on whether or not you want the ball to go in), "driver sort" (only pick up the "correct" color), etc.

A third and fourth unsorted goal may be added with decreased points, to give teams a low-bar achievable target.

TJ Cawley

30-04-2009, 13:09

underwater, yes. But what about floating on top of the water? Boats anyone?

exactly. why not make a boat-like robot that has to accomplish a certain goal? like, while having the body, float on the water, why not have the objective to retrieve something from the game floor, which is under water?

1086VEX

30-04-2009, 13:19

Bertman

30-04-2009, 13:19

Would that be virtual water?

tsiersema

30-04-2009, 13:25

i am hoping for a game with a cubed object this year and have like stairs or a ramp that you need to go up and over a bridge and drop the cube on something or in something. This year was a good game, in this years game, the idea was KISS, which I think is in almost every game. This is my first year but from what team mates have been talking about they are just hoping for nothing to do with a ball this coming season

TJ Cawley

30-04-2009, 13:28

Would that be virtual water?

no. real, what humans are 70% make of, H20
the real challenge would be to accomplish the goal, without sinking your robot's brains, because water and electricity do not mix. you'd have to encase the brains and make sure that you could keep it dry. it be sort of a "recover the shipwreck" idea. like how some sunken ships are brought out of the water, or examined in the water because the ship was too big, like... hmm i dont know... the titanic? just an idea.

notsteve

30-04-2009, 15:07

how bout a game with like random objects? like junk yard style

i mean, for example, lets say the game is simple and scoring into your goal at the other end of feild. the game peices that need to be put into the goals? different peices of oversized plastic fruit! like a big round orange, a bunch of grapes, a banana, they have differen't shapes and stuff so whatever kinda arm/thingy you use to pick up has to be very versitile.

you never know what your team would have to collect, like on role of dice you get a random fruit that gets you the bonus points for the round, and the rest just regular like one point or something.

IKE

30-04-2009, 15:43

i mean, for example, lets say the game is simple and scoring into your goal at the other end of feild. the game peices that need to be put into the goals? different peices of oversized plastic fruit! like a big round orange, a bunch of grapes, a banana, they have differen't shapes and stuff so whatever kinda arm/thingy you use to pick up has to be very versitile.
.

I think I played that game back in the 80's. There was a little Yellow Robot whose goal was to navigate a maze and gobble up a simple scoring piece for a stock number of points, and then big bonuses were given for gobbling up fruits. What was the name of it????
:rolleyes:

Zflash

30-04-2009, 16:11

exactly. why not make a boat-like robot that has to accomplish a certain goal? like, while having the body, float on the water, why not have the objective to retrieve something from the game floor, which is under water?

NURC http://www.h2orobots.org/

which by the way some members of our team have wanted to compete in for sometime, however Arizona where the comp is held does not look to be in our future anytime soon. Who knows anything could happen.

dragonrulr288

30-04-2009, 16:50

I think I played that game back in the 80's. There was a little Yellow Robot whose goal was to navigate a maze and gobble up a simple scoring piece for a stock number of points, and then big bonuses were given for gobbling up fruits. What was the name of it????
:rolleyes:

Hmm.. Pacman? No, that cant be it!!
but you have to admit, it would be an interesting idea.... :D

IKE

30-04-2009, 17:50

Hmm.. Pacman? No, that cant be it!!
but you have to admit, it would be an interesting idea.... :D

I would play a Pacman based game as long as we get to keep our Killer bee Yellow.

Personally I think it would be fun to process bed pillows. I know they had the floppies that one year, but I think it would be fun to just try to process and score standard pillows with a Robot Proof pillow case.

Insert some sort of clue about falling asleep on the job.

Kimmeh

30-04-2009, 18:36

how bout a game with like random objects? like junk yard style

i mean, for example, lets say the game is simple and scoring into your goal at the other end of field. the game pieces that need to be put into the goals? different pieces of oversized plastic fruit! like a big round orange, a bunch of grapes, a banana, they have different shapes and stuff so whatever kinda arm/thingy you use to pick up has to be very versatile.

you never know what your team would have to collect, like on role of dice you get a random fruit that gets you the bonus points for the round, and the rest just regular like one point or something.

Hehe, sounds like a robot scavenger hunt!

It combines different object shapes, and the playing field could be split up into room like segments. That means that you would have to use a camera to find the objects. The alliance with the most items wins.

RoboMaster

30-04-2009, 18:45

People on this thread have mentioned no bumpers and such, and while the discussion has faded, I would just like to add something that I think is important. People on this thread were constantly saying that bumpers matter because of damage to robots/don't matter because damage to robots doesn't happen. I would like to say that they are also there for human safety reasons. Having a 120lb robot smash it's metal frame into your shins or something else around the room is not a pleasant experience.

Autonomous mode at the end sounds interesting. I like pool noodles and safety cones, but you can't get neither of them very easily...(pool noodles in January?? and where could you ever by safety cones?)

I also like the idea of a big wall in the middle that you can't see around. Teams could go around using their cameras, or teams that want to go simple can stay on their side and get points. They could especially do defence agains the other alliance's robots that come around the wall.

How about if FIRST builds these little movable platforms which are basically flat moving dollys (not the ones with handles that you tip) with strong boards on top of them. If at the end of the game your robot is on top of this platform, bonus points! That seems like a really interesting challenge.

And maybe a game where you don't have to drive around with wheels (stationary robots). It's kind of hard to think of a game where you could do this and make it fun for the crowd, but it's thinking outside of the box.

I agree that a water game is totaly unpractical. But I thought once that the game pieces could be large water-tight boxes partially filled with water. The robots would have to transport these by picking them up (maybe they could push them...). The big deal is that they are heavy, awkward, and if a robot stops, the water has a lot of momentum and sloshes around in the box, making it hard to manuver and actually stop. Oh, and tinted water that you could sense with the cameras. :)

I like the pillow idea. Maybe large bags/beanbags with hard-to-break fabric/netting? Or balloons! Decrease points if you break them!

Have a big rectangular box that is just barely bigger than the robot size limits. If a robot manuvers itself into this box through an open face on one side at the end of the match, bonus points!

NO BALLS FOR GAME PIECES!!! GIVE US SOMETHING UNIQUE!!! :eek: :mad: :)

cpeister

30-04-2009, 19:07

As many have said above, I would like to see less dependence on human players and more on the robot itself. I think some stairs/hills would make the game a great deal more interesting. I would still enjoy a water challenge, but I really do not think it is practical.

RoboMaster

30-04-2009, 19:40

Have the robot take a flag or pole out of a vertical tube (or even horizontal!) and place it in another upright tube in the center of the field, like a flag.

JaneYoung

30-04-2009, 19:47

Have the robot take a flag or pole out of a vertical tube (or even horizontal!) and place it in another upright tube in the center of the field, like a flag.

I've seen pool noodles used for vertical placement/removal in a robotics competition called BEST. It was a mite difficult. Anytime you place an object in a slot or narrow container (or remove it), it creates a challenge for the robot working against time.

Tyler Hicks

30-04-2009, 19:48

I really want to see a "capture the flag" type thing to happen. I'm not sure how it would all work out, i have a few ideas though.

also, towards this game. I want to see a game as fun to play as this years (coming from a driver), but with less human player influence (maybe FIRST didn't think people would be quite this accurate?).

yeah, i said the same thing earlier, but a CTF game would be awesome!
have a game piece being stolen from the opponent's side and brought back to your side would be awesome. don't forget the rough terrain!

DMetalKong

30-04-2009, 20:18

I think the neatest idea I've seen for a game piece comes from this post: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=748430&postcount=9

Having robots build bridges across the field would be awesome to watch.

Chris is me

30-04-2009, 21:01

I'd like to see a CTF like game. Get a game piece from the opponent's goal, put it in a fairly precarious place on your side, and if it stays for 5 seconds, you've scored it.

shgshgshgshg

30-04-2009, 21:42

On one Bill's blog he hinted that the game next year might involve water.
I personally would live this idea, but too much water might ruin robots....

nlknauss

30-04-2009, 22:12

It would be great to continue to see a game where you have human player involvement, similar to 2003 and 2005 where you had the pressure pad. It sort of emulates how we need to interact with technology and build it so that it best helps us.

I'll get off my robot soap box now....woah wait, robots climbing boxes? Alliance furthest up in the air gets points? Could be intriguing!

Chris is me

30-04-2009, 22:29

On one Bill's blog he hinted that the game next year might involve water.
I personally would live this idea, but too much water might ruin robots....

This gets joked about every year. The hint was too blatant to take seriously.

roboraven15

30-04-2009, 22:36

ya terrain would be a major part of a ctf type game, like a hill in middle maybe and some rough offroad spots or like slick stuff. make it really intresting.

Zflash

01-05-2009, 07:37

How about if FIRST builds these little movable platforms which are basically flat moving dollys (not the ones with handles that you tip) with strong boards on top of them. If at the end of the game your robot is on top of this platform, bonus points! That seems like a really interesting challenge.

I like the pillow idea. Maybe large bags/beanbags with hard-to-break fabric/netting? Or balloons! Decrease points if you break them!

The moving platforms and "pillows" were in the 1999 game. The moving platforms were called pucks and also had poles on the side that teams got extra bonus points for cantilevering on (hanging off of) and pillows were called floppies these were bags made of fabric that were filled with packing peanuts and had velcro attached in the middle and on the perimeter I think.

And yes it did make for an interesting game.

lady lighting

01-05-2009, 09:38

This years game was really hard to scott and it was kinda boaring to watch. maybe next year it could have less human player action, it should be a more difficalt task. I like the floor and think we should use it again next year.

Bertman

01-05-2009, 10:01

With regard to a water game. I think it will be next to impossible to get permission from most school districts to have a pool of any type in or near a school as a practice field that is not completely fenced and locked (from a liability standpoint). If your school is not lucky enough to have a pool (ours is not) the cost would be prohibitive and all public pools are closed in January and February. Just a thought.

NickE

01-05-2009, 10:10

I'd like to see a CTF like game. Get a game piece from the opponent's goal, put it in a fairly precarious place on your side, and if it stays for 5 seconds, you've scored it.I can really imagine a ctf type match in which the two alliances are so good that nobody scores. 0-0 on Einstein?

Robert Cawthon

01-05-2009, 11:03

I also like the idea of a big wall in the middle that you can't see around. Teams could go around using their cameras, or teams that want to go simple can stay on their side and get points. They could especially do defence agains the other alliance's robots that come around the wall.

How about if FIRST builds these little movable platforms which are basically flat moving dollys (not the ones with handles that you tip) with strong boards on top of them. If at the end of the game your robot is on top of this platform, bonus points! That seems like a really interesting challenge.

I love these ideas. But the most important thing (to me) is to have a game that is interesting (and easy to explain) to the audience. Aim High and Overdrive seemed to fit this bill. It is important to keep up outside interest (for sponsors and political purposes) so we need to make it captivating to our audience. Any one have ideas on that? :confused:

Chris is me

01-05-2009, 11:06

Well, I'm imagining some kind of ramps that you get points for being on at the end of the match. Perhaps the flag must be balanced on top of a pole on a ramp ?

For that to work there has to be some incentive not to be on the ramp, though... such as getting more flags!

Mark Rozitis

01-05-2009, 11:11

My idea for next year's game since I am involved with severe weather up here is a severe weather themed game.

The robot would have a rotating tornado down the middle of it and using some means (suction or mechanical) would pick up "hail stones" or something similar to the poof ball game piece and once up at the top the shooter must then score by firing said game piece, score on a fixed goal or on a chaser robot? With of course the chaser robot trying to avoid.

Human players could assist in some way with the hail stones.

The scoring could somehow be related to the Fujtia scale that tornadoes are rated on.

No trailers, need a faster paced game, faster speed for the robots, not so that every robot gets knocked over but a bit more intensity would be nice, more action and scoring and a less cluttered field than this year.

The rotating funnel cloud or "tornado" once the cloud makes contact with the field could also pick up hail stones from the field as well and score, not just score with it's allotment of pre-loaded pieces.

I'll let someone else add were and how they would like to see lightning and thunder introduced to this game.:)

Hopefully someone from FIRST reads this and I've just saved a whole lot of people a year's worth of planning and design :)

Now from a camera operator perspective....anything but white on the field floor as it's a huge problem to adjust from shooting the field to the players at the control stations and up to the stands to the stands.

Now how ironic would it be though for Team 188 "The Blizzard" to be driving force behind a tornado?

Sorry, I just had to much time on my hands this morning while I am waiting for some parts for my news/chase truck so I had to write this :)

Mark

EricH

01-05-2009, 11:52

The robot would have a rotating tornado down the middle of it and using some means (suction or mechanical) would pick up "hail stones" or something similar to the poof ball game piece and once up at the top the shooter must then score by firing said game piece, score on a fixed goal or on a chaser robot? With of course the chaser robot trying to avoid.
[...]

Now how ironic would it be though for Team 188 "The Blizzard" to be driving force behind a tornado?

Sorry, I just had to much time on my hands this morning while I am waiting for some parts for my news/chase truck so I ad to write this :)

MarkBlizzard won't. Robowranglers (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/32848)(team 148) already did. There were some other helical loaders that were pretty fast too.

You definitely have too much time on your hands. I do too, if the first thing I thought of was that that's already been done...:D

Mark Rozitis

02-05-2009, 00:04

What I posted was just the theme, brighter minds than me can go ahead and make everything massively complicated and write hundreds of pages of rules and tweak the idea into a game, another theme would be something green energy related or making best use of energy as afterall the whole go green thing is not going away.

and yes...one of the very rare times when I had too much time on my hands, incredible.

Blizzard won't. Robowranglers (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/32848)(team 148) already did. There were some other helical loaders that were pretty fast too.

You definitely have too much time on your hands. I do too, if the first thing I thought of was that that's already been done...:D

StevnIndustries

02-05-2009, 08:25

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?)
2. A game where the robot is more important than the human player (isn't this the FIRST Robotics Competition?)
3. A game where we can unfold again! (I understand why they did it this year, but the games were a lot better when we could unfold.)
4. A game where autonomous and the end mode matter more. (This year, autonomous and the end mode amounted to "let's run away so we don't get score on more").

Definitely seemed like this year's game was meant to even the odds between rookie and veteran teams.

Mark Rozitis

02-05-2009, 20:35

[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?)

If you work in news, believe me "I've been there" and that's about all I can say in a public forum but yes I have seen some who do well get dumbed down and held back for just that, blowing away the competition too often. When I read about that rule it sure hit home believe me although I doubt they out that rule in there for that reason or but then again it sure teaches you that being too good in a certain area can cause others to react negatively.

I don't agree though with that type of rule, no one should be penalized for being too good, if someone or some team IS too good then it just gives others something to study and work up to that level or at least try but knowing that you might be penalized leads to not wanting to try so hard.

m

Daniel_LaFleur

02-05-2009, 22:40

Echoing a whole bunch of other people:

Apparently I'm not one of them

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?)

I've said it before, and I'll say it again ... That rule is not a penalty, it is a condition. Teams need to pay attention to that condition and make a decision as to if it's worth it or not to 2x or 3x their opponents score.

2. A game where the robot is more important than the human player (isn't this the FIRST Robotics Competition?)

FIRST is about people and inspiration, not robots.

3. A game where we can unfold again! (I understand why they did it this year, but the games were a lot better when we could unfold.)

On this, we completely agree.

4. A game where autonomous and the end mode matter more. (This year, autonomous and the end mode amounted to "let's run away so we don't get score on more").

I'd like to see this as well, however the last few times that the endgame mattered people complained that it was worth too much (ramps in '07, hanging in '05).

Definitely seemed like this year's game was meant to even the odds between rookie and veteran teams.

really? Then please explain 67 and 217 dominating their tournements. This year threw a curveball at the veterans, true ... but it, in no way, leveled the playing field, nor should the GDC try and level the playing field. IMHO

astallasalion

03-05-2009, 00:37

I've said it before, and I'll say it again ... That rule is not a penalty, it is a condition. Teams need to pay attention to that condition and make a decision as to if it's worth it or not to 2x or 3x their opponents score.

Yes, the rule is a condition, but the effects of said condition are penalizing. What you say is true about making a decision of whether or not is it worth it to outscore an opponent by two or three times their score, but not in a game like this. The score was extremely hard to measure until after the game was finished and the balls were counted. I do not think that the drivers had enough time to make an accurate judgment based on an estimation of moon-rocks in three different trailers. Also, with the risk of having the opposing alliance score super-cells, it was a much better option in most cases to just score as much as possible.

FIRST is about people and inspiration, not robots.

This is very, very true. However, during the actual game, one would think that the robots, not the humans, should be the ones doing most of the scoring. Compared to last year, human players had an infinitely larger role, especially with this year's endgame.

I'd like to see this as well, however the last few times that the endgame mattered people complained that it was worth too much (ramps in '07, hanging in '05).

I would love to see a more intense autonomous period and an endgame as well. There were virtually no incentives to scoring in autonomous this year, apart from scoring on an immobile trailer (and that's only if the opponent's robot's autonomous mode did not last the whole period and if your robot had target-tracking and some darn good code.) Also, GDC seemingly took the massive amounts of points scored in the endgame the past few years into account. Overdrive's endgame bonus seemed completely fair and balanced last year. While it's true that some teams carefully loaded super-cells into their robot during the last twenty seconds, most teams left them in the hands of their HP's. Again, I don't think that the HP's should have played such a large role. (That's not to say cross-court super-cell shots weren't epic!)

really? Then please explain 67 and 217 dominating their tournements. This year threw a curveball at the veterans, true ... but it, in no way, leveled the playing field, nor should the GDC try and level the playing field. IMHO

Very true again, regarding 67 and 217. Though off the top of my head, I can think of numerous rookie teams that did just as well if not better than most of the veterans: 2753, 2775, etc. While it's true that veterans generally have had the upper hand, this year things seemed to be a bit different. I don't want to generalize teams, but as a whole, I saw more two and three digit teams fall to 4-digit teams than last year; heck, four digit teams in the 2000's to be more precise. I recall two teams (2655 and 2415) overcoming the 1st alliance in the quarterfinals at Peachtree. They went on to win the regional, with 2415 winning a second regional at Palmetto. 2775 made it to the finals of their division, and 2753 was on Einstein. These are just examples I experienced personally. There are probably many more that I can't think of. I do think that the playing-field was leveled this year, and I think FIRST was right in designing a game that did so.

lady lighting

03-05-2009, 12:18

next years game should be SOCCER! the robots have to try to score on the opposing teams goal while their goalie trys to prevent it.
:) :) :cool:

delsaner

03-05-2009, 14:24

next years game should be SOCCER! the robots have to try to score on the opposing teams goal while their goalie trys to prevent it.

O_O
very interesting....

595294001

03-05-2009, 17:17

Here's my game idea:

The field is divided in half down the center (between driver stations) by a large black curtain (permanently attached to the floor), the curtain has opening on each of the far sides (by the human players)with ramps leading into the gaps, and a opening 1/2 or 2/3 robot starting height beside each. (the openings in the curtain are at the edges, so that it is hard for driers to see through them).

The robots would collect scoring objects on their own side (the side of the curtain their drivers where on), and score on the other. The drivers would be challenged to score, because they could only tell where their robot was, based on communication from teammates, debugging lights, and potentially (I don't know if FIRST would be willing to do this) laptops attached to the drive system, allowing the robots to send back video :ahh:.

The scoring object could be anything, my suggestion would be posts that you have to stick into holes, or some other manipulation intensive scoring challenge.

It would increase defense (because you have the advantage of sight when defending, making it easier and more worthwhile). Allow programing innovations (scoring using semi-autonomous routines, because its hard ot control scoring manually without *much* vision.). Increase the importance of humans through teamwork (Human players, could communicate with their drive teams), while letting the robots score. And the challenge would mix up strategies and ideas, challenge drive teams, and require innovative design and building, while allowing openings for rookies, to work in easier, but just as vital positions, like defense.

Stretching FIRST to the limit and creating a new fun FRC game.

Zach O

03-05-2009, 17:58

Everything Lunacy wasn't :P

TJ Cawley

04-05-2009, 13:23

595294001

04-05-2009, 21:06

Where do you submit ideas to the GDC.

EricH

04-05-2009, 21:17

Where do you submit ideas to the GDC.
For FRC or FTC? For FRC, the Game Design forum here is checked every now and again by GDC members. They may or may not use anything in there.

I'm not sure about FTC, though.

Be warned, though: I don't know who the FTC GDC is, but they may or may not also check said forum for ideas...

595294001

04-05-2009, 21:21

No, I'm wondering where you can talk the the FRC GDC

EricH

04-05-2009, 23:09

No, I'm wondering where you can talk the the FRC GDC
In which case, the FRC Game Design subforum here on Chief Delphi. As a matter of fact, by tradition, they post threads about "YOU Design the [next year] Game!" sometime around this time of year. They'll give some idea of what they're looking for in the particular topic of discussion, and then various CD members post their crazy ideas for games, technology, automation, etc.

M.Wong

05-05-2009, 20:33

Well, I'm imagining some kind of ramps that you get points for being on at the end of the match.

Ehh, I'd rather not see a similar end game bonus that has been previously used (2007, many teams had ramps).

FTC's end game bonus was ramps this year i believe.

TJ Cawley

06-05-2009, 12:53

i'd like to see a game that more strongly goes to help "green-up" car design and fuel emissions/ideas. if we could have a game to help with that, then maybe FIRST could also help the auto industry in this damaged economy.

JaneYoung

06-05-2009, 13:06

... if we could have a game to help with that, then maybe FIRST could also help the auto industry in this damaged economy.

Thinking of ways that the FIRST program can help with global challenges such as your suggestion/example that you've offered, is really cool. It is visionary and reflects big picture thinking. I don't get to see a lot of posts that really think outside the bot like this and it just made my day. Total.

Thank you, TJ.

Jane

TJ Cawley

06-05-2009, 13:23

your welcome. i just think that i should try to help get such a big organization as FIRST to help the BIG problem of the economy, and the easiest way to start off, help the auto industry. its the industry that to me, needs the most immediate help.

lady lighting

06-05-2009, 17:28

Putting it out 4 nest year we should do something for the the envriment lets GO GREEN

Fe_Will

06-05-2009, 20:31

Thinking of ways that the FIRST program can help with global challenges such as your suggestion/example that you've offered, is really cool. It is visionary and reflects big picture thinking.

Personally, I think that any game challenge that provides students with an opportunity to learn and demonstrate problem solving skills on multiple levels is more important than selecting a single issue to focus on. Not to down play the auto industry but there are other sectors of the economy that are hit just as hard or harder. I'd prefer if the FIRST Robotics Competition stuck with helping people recognize that science, math, engineering and technology are viable options and inspiring them to follow those pursuits.

Game Suggestions:

A fun, fast paced game
A meaningful autonomous that has an impact on the outcome of the game (either by awarding points, triggering an event or both)
At least 2 different types of surfaces for the robot to interact with besides the driving surface (different size/shape game pieces, goals, pull up bars, etc.)
Multiple ways to earn points (to the degree that an average team would have to choose which way they would score)
A dramatic end game event (pull up bar in '04/ ramps in '06... needs to be a "Are they going to make it?" feeling)

Robot Suggestions:

No more kitbots (If your robot came from a box and assembly was measured in hours maybe FTC or VRC is for you.)
No more bumpers (Bring back the days when winning the Motorola Quality Award meant something...)
Unfolding robots
Additional weight to compensate for the new control system

JaneYoung

06-05-2009, 20:42

I'd prefer if the FIRST Robotics Competition stuck with helping people recognize that science, math, engineering and technology are viable options and inspiring them to follow those pursuits.

No argument from me there. In a Rumor Mill thread, anything is possible to think about, even big picture thinking regarding solving problems and accomplishing tasks at hand.

Robert Cawthon

07-05-2009, 15:56

I love this thread. You never know which direction its going next. The reason I started this thread so soon after Atlanta is that:
1. I enjoy seeing all of the ideas and, although some may be worn, some are fresh and I do love those.
2. I decided that the quicker I started it, the more avid the response would be because even though some want to get away from the fast pace for a while, others are even more enthused at this time.
3. Its never too early to start dreaming.

Keep the ideas flowing. You never know, someone on the GDC may be watching! :D

Andrew Schreiber

07-05-2009, 16:32

No more kitbots (If your robot came from a box and assembly was measured in hours maybe FTC or VRC is for you.)
Additional weight to compensate for the new control system

I agree with everything other than these two points, the kitbot allows you to at least meet the bare minimum requirement for competition. All teams HAVE to move in order to compete. Remember, the competitions is the means to an end. While I agree with the thought that some FRC teams would be better off competing in FTC and VRC I have come to accept that the vision of FIRST is that all students have access to this program.

The low weight limit is to force us into creative thinking. Though, I was a fan of 2007 with the multiple weight classes. Perhaps make weight a function of initial volume.

Keep the ideas flowing. You never know, someone on the GDC may be watching! :D Actually, yeah we do, see that nice box down at the bottom that tells us who is reading here? :) (Yes Im just giving you a hard time)

qwertyuiop[]\

07-05-2009, 16:43

an ovoid game piece.

they would be hard to throw and pick up. maybe nerf footballs. this would really make for some interesting shooting mechanisms and/or a lot of dumpers.

also another good game piece would be something akin to a cube (no square game piece since '03)

jpmittins

10-05-2009, 14:54

Personally, I think that any game challenge that provides students with an opportunity to learn and demonstrate problem solving skills on multiple levels is more important than selecting a single issue to focus on. Not to down play the auto industry but there are other sectors of the economy that are hit just as hard or harder. I'd prefer if the FIRST Robotics Competition stuck with helping people recognize that science, math, engineering and technology are viable options and inspiring them to follow those pursuits.

Game Suggestions:

1.A fun, fast paced game
2.A meaningful autonomous that has an impact on the outcome of the game (either by awarding points, triggering an event or both)
3.At least 2 different types of surfaces for the robot to interact with besides the driving surface (different size/shape game pieces, goals, pull up bars, etc.)
4.Multiple ways to earn points (to the degree that an average team would have to choose which way they would score)
5.A dramatic end game event (pull up bar in '04/ ramps in '06... needs to be a "Are they going to make it?" feeling)

Robot Suggestions:

6.No more kitbots (If your robot came from a box and assembly was measured in hours maybe FTC or VRC is for you.)
7.No more bumpers (Bring back the days when winning the Motorola Quality Award meant something...)
8.Unfolding robots
9.Additional weight to compensate for the new control system

1. I think Lunacy was pretty fast paced, so was Overdrive. I hope they can do it again.
2. While I would like to see auton have an actual difference in the game's outcome, I didn't mind it this year. Maybe that's due to our ability to actually make a good auton program.
3. Yes! That would be awesome! I joined in 2007, I wish I could have played 2004 with the stairs and the pull-up bar.
4. I think that would be cool too. I liked the scoring in 2007 and 2008. Hope they come up with something like that again.
5. I liked the end game this year. Waiting for the supercells to be thrown in was really cool. Plus, if it missed, you had less than 15 seconds for the robot to pick it up and get it in a trailer.
6. NO! As a team who has used a kitbot for god knows how many years, I actually find this post offensive. While we generally use our own wheels and manipulator parts, we have always made a kit-chassis simply because we can't afford a custom one. However, I can always design something good from it, even though it might not be "original". Were they to take away the kit, that would really discriminate against the poorer teams and almost guarantee that only well funded, veteran teams win.
7. Again, I heartily disagree. Bumpers allow robots to run into each other without too much damage. It makes for a better game when they can ram each other without penalties of almost un-reparable damage. I feel that a lack of bumpers would again discriminate against poorer teams who can't afford to build something quite so robust.
8. That, however, would be awesome if we could do that again. I do think that this year's bots looked pretty cool; also, there was less chance of total robot destruction (he said from experience).
9. I kind of agree, but I also understand where they're coming from with the same weight limit. It makes us think outside the box, even though it might be difficult. This is FIRST, after all.

\;857936']an ovoid game piece.

they would be hard to throw and pick up. maybe nerf footballs. this would really make for some interesting shooting mechanisms and/or a lot of dumpers.

also another good game piece would be something akin to a cube (no square game piece since '03)

I would love a weird shaped game piece. It would make designs so much more innovative, instead of seeing the same basic thing over and over again.

Now as for me, all I really want is a game where good defense is a must. My team can build an awesome defensive bot, but rarely are we ever awarded for it. Even this year, when defense was key, we didn't get picked in Philly, even after proving our excellent defensive capabilities. Next year, I hope that the GDC offers more of a benefit for teams who want to make more defensive bots.

Doctorwho

10-05-2009, 18:17

jpmittins

10-05-2009, 19:52

I think a Capture-The-Flag style game would be kind of neat, teams that played on the defensive could be rewarded just as much as the teams that played offense, plus it would make working together in an alliance that much more critical

Ooh, that would be cool. I think it could offer some really intense gameplay as well. Also, it would be really easy to explain capture the flag style games to those outside of FIRST.

EricH

10-05-2009, 20:49

Doctorwho

10-05-2009, 21:34

Whatever the game is I think it should be easily engaging for the person who hasn't seen a FRC game before, For example, Aim High, Rack and Roll, and Overdrive all were action-packed and entertaining to watch. Lunacy was in my opinion, a bit dull compared to previous challenges, in Overdrive the audience could easily tell when an alliance scored and who had won at the end. The outcome of a Lunacy match doesn't have that same effect.

Nick Rixford

10-05-2009, 22:04

ok, well i like the more driver oriented things, cuz i am the driver....but what about use of the regolith and the carpet since they have spent so much money on it lol, and moveable things that your have to put in specific locations....or a mix of all the past games

jpmittins

10-05-2009, 22:07

All I'm going to say to this is, defense wasn't necessarily key this year; it was the combination of offense and defense. Also, as soon as the GDC makes a highly defensive game, the offensive specialists will start complaining about "brickbots" damaging them and winning just by driving around. (Or you get the team that thinks this is Battlebots--but a few penalties will often keep them in line.)

You have to have a balance of offense and defense, or the game is going to be really annoying to a lot of people. See 2001's 4v0 game or 2003's king-of-the-hill game. (Granted, 2003 wasn't all defense, but a defensive robot could sure beat an offensive robot with great ease!)

Well, of course defense shouldn't be the only factor in a game, but I really think it should be important. Some teams just don't realize that the ability to take a robot out for the entirety of a match is important, which I think is silly.

What exactly do you mean when you say this year defense wasn't key? I think it was the most important this year than is has been in the past three. When 423 started playing defense in Philly, we won all of our matches hands-down.

Whatever the game is I think it should be easily engaging for the person who hasn't seen a FRC game before, For example, Aim High, Rack and Roll, and Overdrive all were action-packed and entertaining to watch. Lunacy was in my opinion, a bit dull compared to previous challenges, in Overdrive the audience could easily tell when an alliance scored and who had won at the end. The outcome of a Lunacy match doesn't have that same effect.

I really liked Lunacy, since watching the mega-dumps was really fun. I don't understand what people mean when they say that it was hard to explain the game this year; have more balls in your opponents' trailers than yours at the end of the game; also, green balls are worth more than the purple ones. Also, how was it easier to tell who had won an Overdrive match versus who had won a Lunacy match? Sure, you could keep count better in Overdrive, but you could easily see the score for yourself on the field in Lunacy.

Dantvman27

10-05-2009, 22:08

Levels!
not just little end ramps or something, but series of levels, maybe like a king of the hill type game where you have to keep your robot specific game pieces in the circle at the top of 3 levels of platforms, i know this might lead to robot destruction but im sure the game design people could figure something out

oh and maybe isntead of two alliances of 3 how bout 4 alliances of two

EricH

10-05-2009, 22:49

Well, of course defense shouldn't be the only factor in a game, but I really think it should be important. Some teams just don't realize that the ability to take a robot out for the entirety of a match is important, which I think is silly.

What exactly do you mean when you say this year defense wasn't key? I think it was the most important this year than is has been in the past three. When 423 started playing defense in Philly, we won all of our matches hands-down.
Simple, really. You HAD to score to win. Even playing defense, you had to score to win. Scoring is offense, at least in this game. (It isn't always; 2005 is a prime example of defensive scoring...) So if you're playing defense most of the time, you have to be a) pinning, b) hoarding, c) harassing, or d) blocking most of the time, not scoring or loading, which the offensive robots did a lot. This takes you away from scoring-type things and may make you an easier target, depending on conditions.

Or, as an example of how defense doesn't win matches, 330. They played defense most of the time in many of their matches. But, they spent automode loading up, and gulped down any ball they happened to drive over. Once or twice a match, they stopped playing defense (or delayed starting) and SCORED. Scoring is offensive, remember?

Defense was also important in 2007. Keeping opponents from scoring, blocking them from doing the same to you, that's defense. Lots of it happened in 2007.

And, one final note: When a great offensive machine meets a defender, the defender merely slows the pace of the offensive machine. It cannot stop the offense, unless it is a truly great defender. There are still a few offensive machines that WILL BEAT A DEFENDER. Lots of teams played defense against 330 in 2007. Lots of teams also lost to said team, even 3 vs 1 against 330. Same with 1114 in 2007. Same with 67 this year. Same with 25 in 2006. The thing that most scares me is an offensive machine those drivers know when to play defense.

Doctorwho

11-05-2009, 10:18

Rick TYler

11-05-2009, 20:02

\;857936']an ovoid game piece. they would be hard to throw and pick up. maybe nerf footballs. this would really make for some interesting shooting mechanisms and/or a lot of dumpers.

Heh: http://www.vexrobotics.com/vex-clean-sweep.shtml

TJ Cawley

12-05-2009, 13:44

I'd like to see the return of the Robocoach function, for instance you could receive bonus points during teleoperated mode for having the robot perform functions by itself, like picking up a game piece or scoring could count for 1-2 points extra.

we tried to have our robot do that in Lunacy, with function of the camera, to drive up to an opponent's trailer when it was locked on. the one problem from that problem was when we were told that we could not receive data from the robot. so that function was never used.

Jared Russell

12-05-2009, 14:52

Now as for me, all I really want is a game where good defense is a must. My team can build an awesome defensive bot, but rarely are we ever awarded for it. Even this year, when defense was key, we didn't get picked in Philly, even after proving our excellent defensive capabilities. Next year, I hope that the GDC offers more of a benefit for teams who want to make more defensive bots.

I think that this years' game proved to be one of the most defensively-minded yet! Many games have offered the decision between scoring points vs. preventing the opponent from scoring. Every ball you prevent your opponent from scoring in Lunacy is exactly worth the value of one ball scored yourself (as was the case in 2008, 2006, and others...the nonlinear scoring in 2005 and 2007 made this a bit more complicated).

But this was the first game where defense ALSO contributed to scoring in a pretty direct way. Pinning an opponent to the corner not only prevented him from gathering and scoring balls, it also made for an easy scoring opportunity for human players and friendly robots. (Granted the pinning robot was therefore also a target, but a good defensive bot could make sure the pin was happening in a favorable spot on the field)

At the regional (and even Nationals) level scouting can be hit or miss, so sometimes the non-"flashy" machines are unfortunately overlooked. It's happened to us before, too. 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.