"What If" A forum game

[Grim Tuesday]

So, the game goes like this. You change one rule/concept of this years FRC manual, and the person under you explains how they think it would play out. Then they change a rule, and so on.

I'll start:

Ubertubes are now worth 9 points wherever you score them, but have no doubler effect.

[Kpchem]

Everyone would place the ubertubes on the bottom rack, as it is easier to simply drive forward than having to worry about raising an arm/elevator 10 feet into the air while driving forward.

New Rule: Elimination of G33

[Bryany]

There would be lots of sitting in opponents' lanes to get their tubes and block their feeders. (a real crippler)

New Rule: Eliminating G42

[toolgirl]

Add some fun defense maybe? Block off some towers.... claim the field.
Sure you could do so much more but really wanted to throw out:

New Rule: Elimination of G19

[Duke461]

Minibot towers would have been broken, pieces flying everywhere, sub .5 sec races, all in all destroying the field.

New rule: Elimination of G34

[J93Wagner]

Robots would come up with elaborate schemes to pick up a lot of pieces somewhat like this year's vex game (or is it this past year's now that the championship is over?), Round Up.

And give me a few minutes to come up with a rule please.

EDIT: Modification of rule G67: Now mini bot race point values are 20, 15, 10, 5 for placing 1st, 2nd, and so on.

[Andrew Lawrence]

Teams would focus on hanging those last tubes to make those last logos during the last 20 seconds of the match instead of lining up at the towers.

I don't have a rule to take out, so I pass on the honor to someone else.

[Dkt01]

More teams would forego building a minibot. Even the best ones would be less effective in winning matches.

Modification of <R11>: Max playing height: 100", Max playing horizontal dimensions: unlimited.

[penguinfrk]

Insane defensive robots with a lot of field clogging, while scoring on the top rack requires very good tube manipulation (rollers or wrist control to adjust orientation of tubes).

Modified rule: 1st place minibot - 10 pts; 2nd place minibot - 15 pts; 3rd place minibot 20 pts; 4th place minibot - 30 pts.

Hmmm.....

[Eugene Fang]

Minibots designed to score exactly 10 seconds after the round ends.

Like SuperNerd256, I'll pass the honor of a new rule to someone else.

[Nawaid Ladak]

minibot races would be a lot slower, or may not happen at all

elimination of R92

[BIGWILLI2081]

minibots would look a lot different, be faster than they are now, and have different motors and batteries.

Staying on the minibot topic, your minibot has to be shipped with your robot and cannot undergo major changes throughout the season.

[JABot67]

Teams would have spent even more time during build season trying to optimize their minibots. They would also be very unhappy when their design turns out not to be the best and they have to deal with it.

(This is a pretty weird one, but hey, it's a game)

What if a rule is added which says that teams are allowed to choose one, and only one, rule to disregard throughout the season?

[PingPongPerson]

Defensive robots would disregard the pinning rule, and pin opponents for longer ammounts of time.

What if descoring off the other team's rack was allowed?

[Alex Dinsmoor]

We would see robots (like in Vex's game Round Up) that can descore tubes off of opponent pegs in order to prevent logos and ubertubes.

Eliminate the home zones for each alliance (in lanes and near scoring rack).

[Ankit S.]

A new strategy including major Defense would appear, and they would just focus on the minibot race, as tube scoring against defense would become really tough.

Elimination of G47

[BJC]

It would be much easier to find tubes. (grabing them out of the opponents lane) but it would be much harder to score them (defense could play you while scoring.

What if you could deploy your minibot at any time during the match. However, after deploying your alliance would no longer be allowed to score tubes.

edit:too slow

[Norman J]

Immediate deployment after 2 or 3 logos, depending on tube-hanging ability of alliance in question due to diminishing returns of tube hanging compared to getting minibots up the pole before opponents. Also, lots of defense on poles and scrambling to your own poles first as soon as you see opponents abandoning tube-hanging.

What if the poles were not colored by alliance? As in, you can score 3 minibots with one alliance.

[El Geffe]

Jostling for position during he endgame would occur more often. Teams would share extra minibots so that all three robots on an alliance could score, instead of having just two being good enough. Also alliances with very little tube hanging ability but very fast minibots could win regionals.

What if robots could take tubes already possessed by another robot?

[dag0620]

Defense would increase, and a whole new class of robots would arise. The game would become a big sumo match in some ways.

----

The tournament structure was based on the 2010 system.

[Hawiian Cadder]

people would have mini-bots, but wouldn't deploy them till elims

modification to motor rule, any combination of the motors is allowed, as long as the max power output does not exceed 2000 watts.

[Alex Dinsmoor]

You would see much more complicated robots that could play the game at a much faster and competitive level. At the minimum you would see intense drivetrains and very intense manipulators.

What if there was only one minibot pole per alliance?

[Ankit S.]

Then if the current minibot points stayed the same, people would hang that last tube before scoring the minibot, as the difference is only 10 points.

What if there were 5 minibot poles in total, with one of the poles in the middle of the field as a free for all?

[CalTran]

that would making going across the field really freaking difficult as well as a guard from each team posted on their respective ends.

How about removal of G61?

[PayneTrain]

I would hope it wouldn't affect too much, as long as teams remember to play fair. Otherwise, it would cause a lot of sore feelings and maybe a degree of self-policing among teams.

What if, where the "outpost" was in Lunacy, the third human player was given a mechanism resembling an electric leafblower to blow tubes across the field or into their team's lanes?

[CassCity2081]

Teams would abuse this rule and they would use the leafblower to blow the tubes from the robots right before they pick them up.

Minibots can be deployed at 20 seconds and teams can have more than one minibot on their robot.

[jdunston94]

one team would score score on both poles assuming they were good enough... allowing the other two to continue to score tubes.


what if teams could have a second bot that could be on the field but not directly score points?

[Alex Dinsmoor]

Teams would line up even earlier than expected, but do so in a way where they stay touching to the pole for the entire 20 seconds as to block the field from opposing robots going home.
We would also see high scoring robots stay home to score logos and have their not-so-fast-minibot partners go minibot for the alliance (one or two minibots).

As per number of minibots, we would see higher scores earlier in the season, but little change as of now.


What if any minibot pole was free game?

Edit: Too slow, so answering other person's question.

We would see teams build the same robots that we see right now, but along side of them have defensive/feeding robots that would have amazing drivetrains that could stop an opponent dead in their tracks or keep tubes constantly flowing to the alliance.

[Jared Russell]

Q: What if any minibot pole was free game?

A: Seeing multiple robots attempt to deploy their minibots onto the same pole would be a fairly common occurrence, especially in elims. Hilarity would ensue.

New Question: What if LOGOMOTION was played on Regolith with Rover Wheels?

[Pjohn1959]

Then you would have total domination by an alliance with three good mini bots.


What if the alliance selection went 1 thru 8, and then 1 thru 8 again?

[Taylor]

The scoring grids would be shattered (shadoobee) and have to be replaced every 5 matches.

What if teams were allowed to score on the opposing alliance's scoring grids?

[CassCity2081]

Alliances would select a team who was good at de-scoring tubes off of the alliances wall...with the way the tournament is set up there would be little to no actual scoring on the other alliances grid.

Tubes can no longer be thrown and have to be taken through the feeder slot.

[Wayne TenBrink]

Defense bots would rule and the floor would be littered with dropped tubes (assuming that this rule means tubes can ONLY be taken from the slot).

------------------------

All minibots that reach the top are worth 15 points, regardless of order.

[Alex Dinsmoor]

We would not see the advances in the minibots that we do today; there would be little need to since it's no longer a race to the top.
There would also no longer be the pre 15 second lineup, leading to even more logos scored.

What if analysts were allowed to be given tubes to feed the robots (in some way that would not be a risk to the already hung tubes).

[Bob Steele]

Feeding from the scoring end would change the game drastically. Defense could not be played against these robots receiving tubes directly.


Rule change:

Minibots can be played at any time during the match on any pole and repeatedly All poles score the same...1st one up that pole gets 20 points 2nd one up the same pole 15 points... 3rd one up the same pole 10 points. 4th one up that pole gets 5 points...

[Ryan Simpson]

Minibots deployed in autonomous mode.


Robots may possess more that one tube at a time.

[George A.]

Teams would be carrying 3 logos with them from the feeders and not having to worry about collecting more tubes before minibot deployment


What if there was no maximum deployment line for minibot deployment?

[RayTurner1126]

teams would use their arm/elevator for tube scoring to put the minibot on the tower as high as possible.

rule change:

matches are 3 minutes, 15 seconds long

[jdunston94]

scores would be much higher than the 60-110 average more like almost maxing out the points.


what if this game was played on water instead of carpet?

[SammyKay]

We would all have waterproof robots! :)

What if human players were allowed to throw game pieces in before the start of teleop?

[Peyton Yeung]

Then autonomous programs would get messed up due to tube throwing.

What if minibot scores were multiplied by the number of minibots on a tower. For example red 1 scores a minibot and on the same pole red 2 scores a minibot right below red 1's minibot. The pole gets a multiplier of 2x.

[kenavt]

Then autonomous programs would get messed up due to tube throwing.

What if minibot scores were multiplied by the number of minibots on a tower. For example red 1 scores a minibot and on the same pole red 2 scores a minibot right below red 1's minibot. The pole gets a multiplier of 2x.

Lower level teams would work on getting some sort of minibot - it would have a higher priority than it does now for them. A good minibot would make them even more appealing in the second round to the elite teams.

Middle/good level teams would once again raise the priority of a minibot. However, they would place more emphasis on consistency than speed, as in matches they could band with other middle level teams to gain a lot of points. Also, they would hope to be picked through their minibot or be a lower alliance captain.

Elite teams would continue with the same minibot "arms race" as they have now. As the practical limit to minibot speed has now been reached, essentially, they would have hit this end point a couple of weeks earlier than in the season.

What if rules G21 and G22 was modified in the following way: you had to deploy your minibot below the current line as normal, but after the whole minibot had crossed the lin , your robot could touch it again?

[bduddy]

What if rules G21 and G22 was modified in the following way: you had to deploy your minibot below the current line as normal, but after the whole minibot had crossed the lin , your robot could touch it again?I don't think that would change much - too tough to make sure you do it right, and considering how fast the minibots are already I don't think it would be possible to "help" them with a robot. Some teams would probably try to prove that wrong, of course...

Suggestion: Four robots per alliance. (Hey, who said the change had to be minor?)

[dudefise]

Too small a field, gridlock and general insanity...

What if, like the 2009-2010 vex game (Clean Sweep), out-of field game pieces were not reintroduced into play?

[Tetraman]

Teams will be double sure their human players can't throw outside the field. Less pieces in the field that you throw usually means that your team can't score them.

Rule Change: An alliance scores 10 points for 1 minibot, 20 points for two minibots and 30 points for 2 minibots and a robot in your alliance zone in front of your alliance station. (and no, you can not get 20 points for one minibot and a robot in your alliance zone.)

[Duke461]

Teams will be double sure their human players can't throw outside the field. Less pieces in the field that you throw usually means that your team can't score them.

Rule Change: An alliance scores 10 points for 1 minibot, 20 points for two minibots and 30 points for 2 minibots and a robot in your alliance zone in front of your alliance station. (and no, you can not get 20 points for one minibot and a robot in your alliance zone.)

Teams ignore speed, and focus all their time on a 100% reliable deployment system. We also see a lot more "FTC" bots, with possibly lots of TETRIX pieces. Essentially an FTC bot. By Week 3, every other match has 30 on each side, negating the purpose of the end game.

Rule Change: There is a fifth minbot pole directly in the middle of the field. There is no "who touched the pole first" rule. Whichever minibot from either team reaches the top legally first gets an extra 20 points. The order at which the fifth pole is triggered does not affect the other four's triggering and scoring system. It is completely legal if a faster minibot below it knocks it off the pole.

[Hawiian Cadder]

there would be some pretty hardcore def-fence around that 5th pole. teams would build a mini-bot that cannot be knocked off.


mini-bots can be deployed at any time during the match. there is a light sensor on the pole that detects when the mini-bot starts climbing, and the fastest mini-bot wins the race, no matter when it was deployed.

[demosthenes2k8]

Minibots would be even faster and teams would deploy as early as possible so that they can score tubes for the rest of the match without having to worry about the endgame.

Removal of <G63>: If two GAME PIECES are HANGING from a single SCORING PEG, the outermost GAME PIECE will be counted for scoring purposes.

[216Robochick288]

Then we may see people drop the ubertube down a rack to score 4 total logos on the pegs.


How about removal of the minibots altogether? [Annother major game change]

[EricH]

Reported ^^.

As for the actual game portion:
Teams would spend the entire game scoring tubes or pushing robots into lanes.

What if...

The last minibot to contact the tower before the end of the match got the most points... and the first one up got the second-most?

[Andrew Lawrence]

Then we may see people drop the ubertube down a rack to score 4 total logos on the pegs.


How about removal of the minibots altogether? [Annother major game change]

No end game. Teams would focus solely on scoring, and while traversing the field would be easier due to the lack of minibot poles, defensive robots would top the game by blocking the entire middle area.

What if autonomous mode was for a whole minute? Match time stays the same.

[Andrew Lawrence]

^Reported.

[jmanela]

Processors would be flying, crowd excitement would be dying, programmers would be crying. (tears of joy, and sadness).
(coming from a programmer myself)

what if minibots could transport tubes?

[Grim Tuesday]

Processors would be flying, crowd excitement would be dying, programmers would be crying. (tears of joy, and sadness).
(coming from a programmer myself)

what if minibots could transport tubes?

You would find people have little "on/off" ramps on their robot, a herd of minibots, all equipped with tube manipulators.

What if there was a third scoring rack

[Andrew Lawrence]

More possible points, and maybe room for three robots to hang.

What if the minibot poles were horizontal, and teams had to deploy from one end, and have their minibot travel horizontally?

[Christopher149]

Q: What if the minibot poles were horizontal, and teams had to deploy from one end, and have their minibot travel horizontally?

A: Minibots would travel faster (maybe?) and triggering the sensor would probably be less finicky. Also, more teams might have used the NXT because weight would have been less of an issue.


What if the robots had to be entirely autonomous?

[Bjenks548]

Very few robots successfully play the game. Robots use the feeder slot if they even attempt to score. Most robots simply run autonomous mode and head straight to the minibot poles where they sit there for 2 minutes and 5 seconds and then deploy the minibot. Game is very boring.

New rule, Human players can not through past the midfield line (same place the robot can not cross in autonomous).

[huberje]

Human players throw tubes to the end of their lanes only or there would be much more robot-robot interaction in the midfield area.

Rule change: There are no boundaries for members of any drive team currently involved in the game around the field.

[Zuelu562]

Coaches would occasionally leave the driver station to get a view of the field and relay any blockages the driver cannot see, or be the driver's eyes when he's blind (with no camera).

Instead of the First colors, there are red and blue logo shapes. 2 scoring racks midfield on the sides. Alliance with the most tubes in a logo get the points.

[bduddy]

Coaches would occasionally leave the driver station to get a view of the field and relay any blockages the driver cannot see, or be the driver's eyes when he's blind (with no camera).

Instead of the First colors, there are red and blue logo shapes. 2 scoring racks midfield on the sides. Alliance with the most tubes in a logo get the points.And no zones, I presume? Even then, each alliance focuses on its own rack... too difficult to shove through the chaos, and too much effort to get 2 tubes on a rack while being contested.

No restrictions on CIM motors.

[Hawiian Cadder]

rookie teams would use 6-7 cims, and nothing else, because cims are the easiest motors in the KOP to use. veterain teams would use 6 cims (drive) and probobaly use the lighter, harder to use yet just as effective motors elsewhere.


teams are allowed to controll any number of tubes, but may only posses one.

(this came up after i suggested making a kit bot, with a very very large fan on it, 2 cim drive, 2 cim, 4 rs-775, 1 fp on the fan. the idea would be to wedge in between the wall and your mini bot tower, and fill you teams entire side of the arena, with any tubes unfortunate enough to be thrown.

[Andrew Lawrence]

Then we'd see teams building herder bots that could use nets or something like that to catch thrown tubes. We'd also see some robots with a tube case that their manipulator could grab tubes from.

What if robots had an unlimited weight value, but were forced to have a drive train based on their weight (eg. 120 lbs=omni-drive, 150 pounds=tank drive, etc.)

[Zuelu562]

Some teams would pick the drive system that is to their strength and attempt to keep that weight. Some will make all drive systems and snap them into place on the robot depending on their weight. The rest might have a situation on their hands :ahh: .

Human Players may leave the driver station, but cannot throw tubes into play and cannot go over the half-way line of the field while outside of the driver station.