![]() |
Re: 2013 Game?
I think FIRST will keep games spectator-friendly like Rebound Rumble from now on. I doubt regolith or complicated scoring will return next year.
Hockey (without a slippery surface) does sound fun though |
Re: 2013 Game?
Quote:
Also, if we got a hockey game, would we get hockey fights, FIRST style? ::safety:: |
Re: 2013 Game?
Quote:
|
Re: 2013 Game?
Quote:
|
Re: 2013 Game?
Quote:
yum, Jell-O :p |
Re: 2013 Game?
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: 2013 Game?
If anyone on the GDC ever sees this thread, they will make sure that tetras aren't used for the next 15 years, just to annoy all of you.
I think a game with a very low number of scoring pieces (like 2008), very open game piece control/transportation rules, and goals which are diagonal from each other (like 2010, but with one goal for each alliance on each side) would be exciting because it would facilitate cooperative defense by multiple members of an alliance to get the game pieces back and score with them. |
Re: 2013 Game?
This year was a small number of scoring pieces, so maybe the will decide to have a lot in 2013. I think large numbers of some kind of non-ball game pieces could be interesting (underwater, of course).
|
Re: 2013 Game?
Two words: Frisbee Golf
|
Re: 2013 Game?
Every year someone posts game piece trends to figure out what the next year's trend will be. If there is a common trend, it is this:
2012: Basketball (Sport) 2011: Scoring tubes (Nonsport) 2010: Soccer (Sport) 2009: Antigravity (Nonsport) 2008: Racing (Sport) 2007: Scoring tubes (Nonsport) 2006: Vauge Basketball (Sport) 2005: Tic Tac Toe (nonsport) 2004: Track&Field (Sport) 2003: Stack Attack (nonsport) So if that rings true, then next year will be a non-sport, one of those abstract games with an abstract theme. Truths: 1. Tubes will happen at least once every 4 year cycle. They are a great game piece that are easy to score and manipulate, easy to order a great deal of them and they ship deflated - so more space to hold them in shipping. Expect tubes to come again soon. 2. Zones, lanes, "areas" and "alliance specific goal locations" seem to be a common trend, however its been some time since alliances had to score in the same place (2007). This could be something that comes back. 3. The Name and Graphics of the challenge are becoming a very critical part of game design. Every part of the game, from what you call the game pieces to the name of the playing arena; from the logo to the volunteer shirts - everything is specifically detailed starting from the game design. You can not just formulate a simple problem for teams to solve anymore. 4. Rebound Rumble was designed a few years ago, however it was put on the back burner for a later date. This year's game is going to be totally new. This is speculation on my part, but I have a good feeling it is right based on the exit of Dave and Woodie from the GDC and the times the GDC started working. 5. Water Games, or games that include water-based (or water-filled) elements are always possible. |
Re: 2013 Game?
Quote:
|
Re: 2013 Game?
I'd like a game that doesn't involve scoring zones being right next to each driver station. Also, do away with Coopertition, as well as game pieces that lack durability.
|
Re: 2013 Game?
Quote:
|
Re: 2013 Game?
Quote:
This year's game will have few, large scoring elements, with an emphasis on doing it fast. Maybe the return of large pilates balls, but probably not. Those things were dangerous. -Nick |
Re: 2013 Game?
Quote:
I not saying you are wrong, but just in what ways was that year particularly MORE dangerous than any other year? Interestingly enough, the only year where I have ever actually been damaged by a robot was while autonomous testing our 2011 robot. The robot took an unexpected turn and I had to swat the claw out of the way of an unsuspecting team member passing by. |
Re: 2013 Game?
Quote:
|
Re: 2013 Game?
Quote:
The 2013 game was completed a while ago. Preparations for the 2014 game have already started. To have an effect on future games, you will need to focus on what is going to happen in 2015. -dave . |
Re: 2013 Game?
Quote:
I don't know about the rest of you, but that's ALL the validation I need. |
Re: 2013 Game?
Quote:
Dave mentioned 3 years. That means 3 game pieces. He said focus. Cameras focus. 2015 game will be played solely with cameras with operators behind a black curtain. |
Re: 2013 Game?
They should have another FIRST Frenzy. The would be cool.
|
Re: 2013 Game?
Sorry im pretty new to CD, would someone tell me how to post thing in CD. PLZ
Sorry but i really some help :( |
Re: 2013 Game?
Quote:
Or of you need to start a thread, go to forums, find the appropriate forum, and click "start new thread" There were threads labeled "please read before you post" that were given to you after your account was started. They contained all the needed information. Hope this helps! Now, about the game... What about a game where you have to stack crates/buckets/tetras on other robots! Then the robots would have to go to a protected corner zone, and, at the end game, raise the crates/buckets/tetras to gain points! |
Re: 2013 Game?
Quote:
2012: Balls 2011: Tubes 2010: Balls 2009: Moon Rocks (weren't really balls, but everyone treated them like balls) 2008: Balls 2007: Tubes 2006: Balls 2005: Tetras 2004: Balls 2003: Crates 2002: Balls 2001: Balls (Here's where they double up and the trend doesn't really work) 2000: Balls 1999: Floppy things 1998: Balls 1997: Tubes 1992-1996: Balls Since 1996, there has only been one year which hasn't followed this trend (unless you consider 2009), and that game was in 2001, the oddest of them all with moving goals, 4 teams working together, and stopping the clock early by balancing the bridge. I'd bet on a non-ball game piece in 2013, whatever it may be. |
Re: 2013 Game?
One thing I'd like to see in the future is a game that puts more emphasis on vision targets. We've always had them since we got the new control system, and most top-tier teams have usually used them, but it's never really been "required" to do well. It'd be great to get some teams who haven't bothered with it in the past to learn how to handle vision processing.
|
Re: 2013 Game?
Quote:
|
Re: 2013 Game?
Quote:
Unfortunately, I'm stating to think that "something new" is somehow connected with the Kinect. I think we'll be seeing it a lot in the future, but it's application in the games is still open for interpretation. It has more than 1 built in sensor, so maybe it will become a sensor hub for future FRC robots. tl;dr: My prediction is that FIRST will introduce a new concept of play next year. |
Re: 2013 Game?
I anticipate that next year, there will be larger game pieces where handling the sheer mass or size of them will be a challenge. The last 4 years, we have had relatively small and or light game pieces.
2012 ball: less than a pound 2011 tube: less than a pound 2010 ball: less than a pound 2009 rock: less than a pound 2008 ball: heavy. In short, if the game follows trends, it will be a -non ball -heavy game piece -non sport game. |
Re: 2013 Game?
Quote:
2008 (trackballs) 2005 (tetras) 2004 (30" balls, for capping) 2003 (storage bins) 2001 (30" balls, for capping) etc. Not really much to base a prediction on... |
Re: 2013 Game?
This post got me thinking about having two games played in every match. If each game was worth 2 QP, that could force interesting design decisions and game strategy decisions. For it to work, both games would need to require a relevant investment, both in terms of match time and robot capabilities.
Or the endgame could simply be worth 2 QP instead of 2 CP or xyz points. (forget about minibots - that would be awful with QP's) What if the 2009 Lunacy endgame awarded QP? If a supercell was worth 1 QP instead of 15 points, that might have been pretty interesting. That forces you to decide if it's worth the effort of doing the empty cell setup routine or if you need to focus all of your time on winning the match. Other thoughts: what if the highest stack was worth a separate 2 QP in 2003? What if scoring the most balls was worth a separate 2 QP in 2002? That would have changed those games a lot. |
Re: 2013 Game?
Quote:
I like this because it causes teams to come up with different designs unlike this year where all robots that scored pretty much looked the same. Design trade offs also make it more difficult for powerhouses to really do it all, or at least need their alliance partners a little more. I think it's really important that Rookies be able to find their niche in a game, as well as allow for multiple veteran strategies. It's no fun if all robots do the same thing because then teams that don't have as much experiences (or resources) have a really hard time building a competitive robot. And I know I'll probably get a lot of backlash for saying this, but I LIKED the Co-op points this year. It allowed my team to advance a little father than we would have otherwise, which definitely induced A LOT of inspiration afterwards. I've never seen many of the girls on my team so euphoric about engineering or robotics. It was a great thing for my team, and Co-op really achieved what FIRST meant it to, even if some very skilled robots got displaced from winning. :eek: -Anna |
Re: 2013 Game?
I wonder if it gonna be another stacking game like in 2007, and a combination of previous games that we havent seen in a while
|
Re: 2013 Game?
Water, stacking, FIRST Frenzy, anyone?
|
Re: 2013 Game?
Quote:
|
Re: 2013 Game?
I think that FIRST is definitely on a trend towards games more accessible to the public, or that highlights the organization in some way. Personally, I'm hoping for hockey. I don't foresee Coopertition going away. My guess is that it will return again in some form.
In terms of game technology, I agree with everything that's been already been stated. I really think that next year, there will be even more of an incentive to use the Kinect. Lastly, it seems to me that the bottom line for any game we get is how it impacts the FMS and other Volunteers. |
Re: 2013 Game?
My thought is that, next year, using the Kinect will give a bonus, either to the match score or rankings.
|
Re: 2013 Game?
Quote:
Due to the outcry against the rankings this year, I would be incredibly surprised if the Kinect directly affected the rankings. |
Re: 2013 Game?
Quote:
|
Re: 2013 Game?
How about a game using tetras, giant exercise balls and rubber maid containers.
|
Re: 2013 Game?
Quote:
|
Re: 2013 Game?
Quote:
|
Re: 2013 Game?
Quote:
|
Re: 2013 Game?
Quote:
|
Re: 2013 Game?
I have a strong feeling about stacking, it hasn't been done in a while and it has been rather successful in past years. I don't think that its going to be that similar to Triple Play (2005), because first has been trying to make the games easier to watch and understand, this year being probably the easiest. Tetras on the other hand, especially the tic tac toe type element of scoring, was kind of confusing. I think that its going to be kind of like 2003, where points were awarded for the highest stack, and not for the sequence in which the pieces were stacked. I do NOT think that its going to be ball or tube related (anything rounded and squishy really), as that has been very popular lately. I think its going to be a 3D polygon of sorts, but the shape itself is anybody's guess. As for the clues that may crop up in speeches, articles, pictures, etc, I wouldn't worry about them that much. Most are not even intended as clues, and the ones that are are so subtle that you have to analyze every phrase released by first for any kind of reference to something game related.
|
Re: 2013 Game?
Quote:
|
Re: 2013 Game?
A point bonus is NOT the right incentive to using Kinect. Instead, have hybrid be similar to 2006/2009 where you will be caught up in other robots or like 2004/2008 where game pieces and robots are placed semi randomly. Both situations would be enhanced by allowing for direct movement, or, at the very least, Kinect as a mode selector.
|
Re: 2013 Game?
Quote:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/papers/2692? Replace the Axis Cameras with the Kinect? Hard, but I after reading the paper, I think it definitely will get you recognized. |
Re: 2013 Game?
If next year's game is centered around stacking it could be some sort of derivative of jenga.
|
Re: 2013 Game?
Quote:
|
Re: 2013 Game?
Quote:
|
Re: 2013 Game?
Quote:
|
Re: 2013 Game?
What about immovable on-field structures? (This does not include those attached to the alliance walls) There have been:
2012: Bump and Bridges 2011: Minibot Poles 2010: Bumps, Tunnels, and Overhead Bars 2009: Open 2008: Dividing Wall and Overhead Racks 2007: Scoring Tower 2006: Open 2005: Goals 2004: Stationary Goals, Steps and Bar 2003: Enourmous Ramp and Platform 2002: Open Sorry for the poor terminology. I think we might be due for an open field. Other trends (as already mentioned) include non-ball pieces and a non-sport theme. |
Re: 2013 Game?
Quote:
|
Re: 2013 Game?
Quote:
|
Re: 2013 Game?
Quote:
It's a small stretch. |
Re: 2013 Game?
Has anyone said crates yet? I think crates.
|
Re: 2013 Game?
Quote:
|
Re: 2013 Game?
As a programmer I would love to see more autonomous time next game. Maybe 30 seconds?
|
Re: 2013 Game?
Quote:
Quote:
Back to reality, it would be really cool to have a longer autonomous if we continued the point distribution of this year, where autonomous, teleop, and the endgame really were worth equal points. That's one aspect of the game this year that I would definitely like to keep. |
Re: 2013 Game?
Quote:
One thing that might not be awful (in the right game) is the option for teams to select the duration of their autonomy, in exchange for points or multipliers on their scoring during the autonomous period.1 You could have them pre-select the duration, and/or have a button (like the e-stop, but not as conspicuous) that switches control back to the driver (or even back to autonomous thereafter). 1 This probably would work best in a game where individual robots' scoring can be distinguished somehow. Maybe a region of the field where only autonomous robots can go; maybe individualized goals or scoring objects. |
Re: 2013 Game?
Quote:
|
Re: 2013 Game?
I think style points would be an interesting addition to any game. If you can complete an in-game task in a unique way, you should get points (or maybe an award given to the team with the most in-competition points). Examples of such are special triple balancers such as Robonauts and Children of the Swamp. Or the teams that hung from the poles in 2010 (Cheesy Poofs, Simbotics, etc).
tl;dr: I think points should be awarded to a team that most uniquely and effectively pulls of a given task of the game. |
Re: 2013 Game?
I think that 15 seconds is the perfect time for autonomous. It's just enough time for teams to do some really cool things with it (2-3 tubes last year, tipping the bridge this year). Any longer would make it less interesting for the crowd to watch.
|
Re: 2013 Game?
Quote:
|
I want First to add multiple aspects to the game like FTC games because they have many different ways of scoring or winning a match in FRC it is defense or offense. This year we only had two ways to score points while FTC had three or four different ways to score points.
|
Re: 2013 Game?
Quote:
Most teams struggle with the basics now--just look at the Hybrid OPRs. FRC is primarily teleop because autonomous--especially fully autonomous--programming at this level just doesn't look as interesting or work as well. FLL isn't an interactive head-to-head sport; FRC is (I think because, well, it's high school). I'd appreciate more ways to score as well, though I think the reason FRC has shied away from it is to make the games more spectator-friendly. How many sports have 3-4 ways to score? |
Re: 2013 Game?
Quote:
|
Re: 2013 Game?
Quote:
|
Re: 2013 Game?
Quote:
FLL can work easily as a (virtually) autonomous competition since the robots can only ever interact in one mission/task, which is either a race to activate/collect an object, or which will give both teams points. The robots are in otherwise entirely isolated fields. |
Re: 2013 Game?
Quote:
I suspect (with no evidence besides knowing elementary & high school students) that the main reason FIRST made the decision to have multiple FRC robots on one large field is because, well, high schoolers like head-to-head sports. (The direct competition adding qualities seen in most of their...competing...interests in a way most elementary schoolers are not yet as motivated towards.) And as we've agreed, programming at this level just doesn't work as well--for anyone, but certainly for high schoolers. Quote:
|
Re: 2013 Game?
Quote:
-You can get the football into your opponent's end zone (6 points). --You can then either kick it through the uprights for one point or put it in the end zone again (1 and 2 points respectively). -You can kick a field goal (3 points). -You can bring your opponents down in their end zone with the football after they've crossed the plane of the goal line going towards the field (or they send the ball out the back of the end zone), also known as a safety (2 points+ possession of the ball). That's 5 ways to score, two of which are repeats of others for fewer points under certain circumstances. On to other things like separated fields... Not gonna happen. I've seen how it looks when FRC-sized robots are competing FLL style, admittedly for a longer match on a harder task. Spectator-friendly, not so much (that's where you need TV-type coverage to fill in gaps or what have you). |
Re: 2013 Game?
Okay so from looking at past games and history here is what I assume the 2013 game will be like.
Stacking will be involved and same with hanging. When I say hanging, I don't mean like 2010, I mean like 2004 when you have to hang off a bar like that. I also image getting around the field quickly will be essential for a successful robot. I have a feeling there will be some height restriction. Basically I'm imagine a mixture of 2010, 2003, and 2004. 2010 with something like the tunnel, 2003 with the stacking, and 2004 with the high-bar. Basically stacking will be hard with an obstacle about 3-4 feet tall you have to drive under. Designing a stacking robot with hanging capabilities and a height restriction/obstacle will prove difficult, but fun! Thoughts? |
Re: 2013 Game?
Quote:
|
Re: 2013 Game?
I have a feeling their going to use crates in the 2013 game, and maybe inner tubes, because 2010 was using soccer balls, then 2011 was inner tubes, and this year was basketballs, so it kind of looks like a pattern. But I would like to see them do something different from the past games, well they do but its either balls or inner tubes, I hope they use crates though.
|
Re: 2013 Game?
I would like to see something similar to 2005 where the robots were disabled when the human player loaded the robot. However I would also like to see some in-game importance to the human player that directly or indirectly effects the store (i.e. 2012/2011), but not game changing (i.e. 2009/2004), or menial (i.e. 2010).
|
Re: 2013 Game?
Quote:
For those that don't know that game, the HP's actually played on the field. That's right, the first 15 seconds of each match were taken up by the 4 HPs each running 4 bins, marked with retro-reflective tape in addition to normal markings, onto the field, and then going back through the gates and standing on pressure pads. When all 4 were on the pads and the gates closed, the normal 2:15 match started, and the HPs retreated behind the glass with their drive teams. Then the robots started targeting the stacks... What do you expect from a game called "Stack Attack"? |
Re: 2013 Game?
I still thnk water game - 20 feet of pool noodle is enough to float a 120 pound robot.....so they are bumpers on the land portion and floats on the water portion.
|
Re: 2013 Game?
Quote:
|
Re: 2013 Game?
I do not believe we will have to have our robots hang off a bar, as that was the goal in 2010, and the rookies (who were Freshman) in 2010 will now be Seniors and still on teams. From my understanding, FIRST usually only reuses some (of the major) elements at least every 4 years, so that students are not used to challenge.
Case in Point: use of inner tubes in 2007, use of inner tubes in 2011 when all students from that game were gone. |
Re: 2013 Game?
Quote:
|
Re: 2013 Game?
I'd like to see something original. Maybe large scales and various weights around the arena. As the weights picked up by the Bots and carried to the scales it rises a water level in a tube or something like that.
|
Re: 2013 Game?
Quote:
|
Re: 2013 Game?
Eric and I actually came up with a game that the GDC can use for a water game. Which is more then I can say for anyone else.
Main Game: There are several lunacy like goal weighted down on the bottom of a pool. 1 or more robots on a 3 robot alliance must go underwater to pick up at least one of the goals. the remaining robot(s) must score balls filled with a substance less dense then water so they float. each ball scored would be X amount of points, they must remain in the basket until the buzzer to be counted. End Game: X points are awarded per ball to any alliance that can then take their basket(s) and set them upside down on the bottom of the pool. Alternate End Game: X points are awarded to each Robot that hangs on a bar(s) located in the middle of the field. Bars are X distance from the water. Robots must be completed out of the water to count. I haven't thought up an autonomous yet. Ideas? |
Re: 2013 Game?
Quote:
The reason is this: You have to move the entire pool into and out of the venue. (Unless there's one already there, which I highly doubt.) You also have to avoid damaging stuff that's already there. And there are other things that I could go into. tl;dr: There's a reason nobody's seriously proposing a water game. |
Re: 2013 Game?
Quote:
Answer 2: I personally believe that First is slowly switching to venues to have pools. In Michigan this year our newest district competition was at Northville. Northville has a swimming pool, the previous venue did not. And Saint Louis does have a river... |
Re: 2013 Game?
Quote:
But here's the kicker: if the pool is in the Midwest, it's going to be either indoors or empty during competition, something about winter and pools not being filled during winter if outdoors. If the pool is in the South or Southwest, there's at least a 50% chance if not much higher that it'll be outdoors! That introduces a whole new dimension to the game, known as weather, which in some areas of the country could result in everybody watching getting soaked by rain or heavily sunburned. Plus you get varying lighting conditions, debris "on" the field, you get the picture. And oh, yeah, throw in some rather annoyed swim teams because there went their practice space for a week (gotta set up, gotta remove all debris afterwards, and don't forget to check all the chemical levels). Also, in 2008 the Los Angeles regional shared a venue with a "pool". It should be noted, however, that the venue was double-booked that weekend. (And there were some not-too-happy teams due to the resulting crowded pits.) The following year, the regional moved to across the street from a harbor. No water game yet... |
Re: 2013 Game?
It's just a joke of course. To feed the "Water Game" hype.
However, to deal with the weather, just put a tent up over the pool. We just played at IGVC this weekend in 90 degree weather. |
Re: 2013 Game?
Quote:
|
Re: 2013 Game?
Quote:
|
Re: 2013 Game?
Quote:
There are many weird sports that have yet to be emulated by an FRC game, but Swimming/Water Polo always seems to come up more than the rest in 20xx game threads. Why don't equally improbable sports like rock climbing or dirt biking, for example, get the attention that the mythical "water game" always seems to? |
Re: 2013 Game?
Quote:
|
Re: 2013 Game?
Quote:
|
Re: 2013 Game?
Quote:
B. SPELL MY NAME RIGHT! I'm on your team. |
Re: 2013 Game?
Quote:
Yeah, I think water game just gets too much attention. So, I say we try for a curling-based or cricket-based game... |
Re: 2013 Game?
Quote:
|
Re: 2013 Game?
Due to recent comm issues, I think we will use wired connection next year.
The job of the human player will be to suspend from the ceiling and hold the cable. Any takers? :D |
Re: 2013 Game?
Quote:
|
Re: 2013 Game?
Since FIRST robotics has conquered tubes (2011) and balls (2012) it would only seem logical to use something like a frisbee in 2013 or another very different object.
|
Re: 2013 Game?
Ooh Ooh! We should so see something with stacking bins. Stacking bins filled with Hexagonal wire mesh game pieces. And playground balls. Bring all of them back!
|
Re: 2013 Game?
I would like to see a game with hollow cylinders. For example, a 24" long section of 6" PVC drain pipe, etc. Length, diameter, material, and weight could be whatever works for the game. There could even be multiple size game pieces.
There are several ways to pick up a cylinder, so we would see a variety of new and reconfigured manipulator concepts. Orienting the manipulator/chassis to pick up a cylinder and then reorienting the game piece to release it for scoring would require some fresh thinking. Multi-piece handling would be even more ambitious. The game could reward the ability to control and orient the game piece when released - lowest points for pushing them into a low goal, more for depositing them randomly in an elevated goal, more points still for stacking them like logs, even more for hanging them on pegs, etc. |
Re: 2013 Game?
Quote:
Not saying that FIRST can't do it right, but I'm just sharing my experiences. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:11. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi