Chief Delphi

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   General Forum (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   2013 Game? (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=106055)

Gigakaiser 04-05-2012 22:39

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

lorem3k 05-05-2012 00:32

Re: 2013 Game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Gigakaiser (Post 1167101)
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

I think hockey without a slippery surface would be incredibly awkward unless some kind of air-hockey style system was used. I think the Lunacy field and wheels would be great for emulating a hockey game.

Also, if we got a hockey game, would we get hockey fights, FIRST style? ::safety::

Dr. Shocker 05-05-2012 14:02

Re: 2013 Game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by lorem3k (Post 1167136)
Also, if we got a hockey game, would we get hockey fights, FIRST style? ::safety::

GP fights? trying to see who can be the most helpful to the other?

StAxis 05-05-2012 14:04

Re: 2013 Game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Shocker (Post 1167208)
GP fights? trying to see who can be the most helpful to the other?

Are you trying to be helpful to my alliance partner!? *All alliance robots rush off the bench and go to help out*

Walter Deitzler 05-05-2012 14:30

Re: 2013 Game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by lorem3k (Post 1166995)
Hey... a Jello-based game would be great, a bit easier to contain than water due to its semi-solidness.

And the regional victors/ regional chairman's award winners could EAT the Jell-o after they won.

yum, Jell-O
:p

lorem3k 05-05-2012 16:30

Re: 2013 Game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by LedLover96 (Post 1167216)
And the regional victors/ regional chairman's award winners could EAT the Jell-o after they won.

It could be kind of nasty from chain and transmission grease, and especially if someone's CIM started leaking Magic Smoke. And of course it would have that slightly sour hint of aluminium in it.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Shocker (Post 1167208)
GP fights? trying to see who can be the most helpful to the other?

Hahaha. "He's trying to help us! Lemme at 'em!"

Ekcrbe 06-05-2012 15:12

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.

z_beeblebrox 06-05-2012 16:04

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).

mwmac 06-05-2012 16:07

Re: 2013 Game?
 
Two words: Frisbee Golf

Tetraman 06-05-2012 16:39

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.

Ekcrbe 06-05-2012 16:39

Re: 2013 Game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by z_beeblebrox (Post 1167500)
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).

By small i meant something like 4 or 6, because 18 was enough for every robot to the legal maximum, which didn't force any defense in order to acquire pieces.

ChristopherSD 06-05-2012 16:51

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.

Jenn Feathers 07-05-2012 08:33

Re: 2013 Game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tetraman (Post 1167509)
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.

What about the games before these? This trend is alittle misleading without including all of the games.

Nick Lawrence 07-05-2012 10:30

Re: 2013 Game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jenn Feathers (Post 1167665)
What about the games before these? This trend is alittle misleading without including all of the games.

These games are really more applicable than previous ones, as they're in the more 'modern-era' of FRC. Games previous are irrelevant to this argument.

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

Zebra_Fact_Man 07-05-2012 16:12

Re: 2013 Game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick Lawrence (Post 1167692)
...Those things were dangerous.

-Nick


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.

BigJ 07-05-2012 16:16

Re: 2013 Game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Zebra_Fact_Man (Post 1167753)
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.

In my experience getting hit by that big of an object with any appreciable force while unaware for any reason is an easy way to lose your balance and fall on something (or even nothing assuming your build space has a hard floor).

dlavery 07-05-2012 16:25

Re: 2013 Game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tetraman (Post 1167509)
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.

Have any of these truths been validated as true? :)

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



.

JVN 07-05-2012 16:41

Re: 2013 Game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dlavery (Post 1167758)
Have any of these truths been validated as true? :)

Dave Lavery is from team 116. This is the 116th reply to the original post.
I don't know about the rest of you, but that's ALL the validation I need.

Steven Donow 07-05-2012 16:45

Re: 2013 Game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JVN (Post 1167761)
Dave Lavery is from team 116. This is the 116th reply to the original post.
I don't know about the rest of you, but that's ALL the validation I need.

I noticed the exact same thing.

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.

hiyou102 07-05-2012 17:09

Re: 2013 Game?
 
They should have another FIRST Frenzy. The would be cool.

2185Bilal 07-05-2012 17:20

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
:(

Walter Deitzler 07-05-2012 17:30

Re: 2013 Game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by 2185Bilal (Post 1167777)
Sorry im pretty new to CD, would someone tell me how to post thing in CD. PLZ
Sorry but i really some help
:(

Just log in and click "Post Replay", like you did to post this post...
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!

KrazyCarl92 07-05-2012 20:20

Re: 2013 Game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tetraman (Post 1167509)
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.

Even more to the point, the trend seems to be alternating ball years and non-ball years:

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.

lorem3k 07-05-2012 22:46

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.

bduddy 07-05-2012 23:03

Re: 2013 Game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by lorem3k (Post 1167869)
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.

In the past it seemed like no matter how important or "easy" vision tracking was, most teams wouldn't be able to do it. It seems like the changes they've made lately have helped that, though... even at the (relatively weak overall) St. Louis Regional I saw most teams making at least some attempt at it. Maybe they can try something randomized again...

Andrew Lawrence 07-05-2012 23:08

Re: 2013 Game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by lorem3k (Post 1167869)
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.

I think as vision targeting becomes more integrated into the game, and more teams learn how to do it, FIRST will start implementing new methods of play into the game. They've taught the culture to make robots, make/use some of the latest vision-targeting software, which engineers around the world are still playing with, and soon they'll try and teach us something new.

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.

avanboekel 07-05-2012 23:16

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.

bduddy 08-05-2012 03:09

Re: 2013 Game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by avanboekel (Post 1167886)
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
-heavy game piece

That's not a trend. A trend would be saying that large game pieces have been used in:

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...

Nemo 08-05-2012 11:16

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.

ZipTie3182 08-05-2012 16:06

Re: 2013 Game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nemo (Post 1167997)
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.

I think it's an interesting concept to have the "two games" in every match. I think this is what makes a game interesting since it causes design trade offs. It didn't as much as it could this year but it years like 2010 where you had the tunnel and the hanging bar. Most teams did not both hang and go under the tunnel. Or like in 2004 where they was a million ways to score.

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

Ravage457 08-05-2012 16:40

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

hiyou102 08-05-2012 16:59

Re: 2013 Game?
 
Water, stacking, FIRST Frenzy, anyone?

Ekcrbe 08-05-2012 18:58

Re: 2013 Game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ravage457 (Post 1168084)
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

2007 was a tube game, but 2003 and 2005 are the stacking games most often referred to.

brennonbrimhall 12-05-2012 17:10

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.

Savvy578 12-05-2012 17:29

Re: 2013 Game?
 
My thought is that, next year, using the Kinect will give a bonus, either to the match score or rankings.

brennonbrimhall 12-05-2012 17:52

Re: 2013 Game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Savvy578 (Post 1168950)
My thought is that, next year, using the Kinect will give a bonus, either to the match score or rankings.

Or you could simply offer a greater Hybrid bonus to teams that do use the Kinect, especially if the game next year is relatively even between the Hybrid, Teleop, and Endgame periods.

Due to the outcry against the rankings this year, I would be incredibly surprised if the Kinect directly affected the rankings.

Gregor 12-05-2012 18:04

Re: 2013 Game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by brennonbrimhall (Post 1168953)
Or you could simply offer a greater Hybrid bonus to teams that do use the Kinect, especially if the game next year is relatively even between the Hybrid, Teleop, and Endgame periods.

Due to the outcry against the rankings this year, I would be incredibly surprised if the Kinect directly affected the rankings.

Most of the "outcry" about the rankings this year were due to the Coopertition bridge though. The Kinect didn't have a noticeable effect on the rankings, as it was mostly ignored by teams.

JJackson 12-05-2012 18:07

Re: 2013 Game?
 
How about a game using tetras, giant exercise balls and rubber maid containers.

Gregor 12-05-2012 18:10

Re: 2013 Game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JJackson (Post 1168956)
How about a game using tetras, giant exercise balls and rubber maid containers.

Why don't they add Regolith, basketballs, and tubes while your at it? :D

brennonbrimhall 12-05-2012 18:27

Re: 2013 Game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Gregor01 (Post 1168955)
Most of the "outcry" about the rankings this year were due to the Coopertition bridge though. The Kinect didn't have a noticeable effect on the rankings, as it was mostly ignored by teams.

Correct; I was under the impression that you were saying that usage of the Kinect would be directly affecting the rankings.

Ekcrbe 12-05-2012 23:40

Re: 2013 Game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Gregor01 (Post 1168957)
Why don't they add Regolith, basketballs, and tubes while your at it? :D

And play it on a hexagonal field covered in corn.

Gregor 12-05-2012 23:44

Re: 2013 Game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ekcrbe (Post 1169008)
And play it on a hexagonal field covered in corn.

And how about randomly hosing the robots with water? :D

JonathanZur1836 13-05-2012 00:21

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.

PAR_WIG1350 13-05-2012 02:42

Re: 2013 Game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Gregor01 (Post 1169009)
And how about randomly hosing the robots with water? :D

The human players are in charge of operating the water cannons.

gyroscopeRaptor 13-05-2012 11:41

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.

brennonbrimhall 13-05-2012 14:35

Re: 2013 Game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by gyroscopeRaptor (Post 1169058)
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.

After seeing other teams use the Kinect, I'm curious to how to make it work not only during Hybrid, but also on board the robot itself. This whitepaper is really, really cool to me, but that may be because I'm not programmingly inclined. :D

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.

JRTaylord 15-05-2012 21:36

Re: 2013 Game?
 
If next year's game is centered around stacking it could be some sort of derivative of jenga.

Gregor 15-05-2012 23:12

Re: 2013 Game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JRTaylord (Post 1169650)
If next year's game is centered around stacking it could be some sort of derivative of jenga.

Oh now that might be fun :D

Boe 15-05-2012 23:56

Re: 2013 Game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by PAR_WIG1350 (Post 1169035)
The human players are in charge of operating the water cannons.

I'm officially my teams human player next year :D

torihoelscher 16-05-2012 10:45

Re: 2013 Game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tetraman (Post 1167509)

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.

They are also great to make skirts out of them. I would know...I am making 6 or 7 of them. (Of course all old tubes that have holes, tears, and etc. No new ones! Recycle!!! :) :) :) )

Ekcrbe 17-05-2012 09:39

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.

Jenn Feathers 17-05-2012 12:02

Re: 2013 Game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by PAR_WIG1350 (Post 1169035)
The human players are in charge of operating the water cannons.

Alright!! :D

PAR_WIG1350 17-05-2012 15:31

Re: 2013 Game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ekcrbe (Post 1170035)
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.

2006 had ramps and 2009 had rigolith, which was flat, but it was an immobile field element, and depending on your perspective, it could even be called a structure.

Ekcrbe 18-05-2012 09:04

Re: 2013 Game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by PAR_WIG1350 (Post 1170106)
2006 had ramps and 2009 had rigolith, which was flat, but it was an immobile field element, and depending on your perspective, it could even be called a structure.

I know 2006 had ramps but they were at the end of the field, not out in the open.

It's a small stretch.

Ninja_Bait 19-05-2012 07:57

Re: 2013 Game?
 
Has anyone said crates yet? I think crates.

jon-s 21-05-2012 19:15

Re: 2013 Game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by lorem3k (Post 1164827)
It would be pretty interesting to do a field with a non-uniform surface like sand or gravel... or water

How about a surface with lots of bumps (may be too hard to implement) or obstacles (like the minibot pole bases)?

sebflippers 21-05-2012 19:50

Re: 2013 Game?
 
As a programmer I would love to see more autonomous time next game. Maybe 30 seconds?

brennonbrimhall 21-05-2012 20:05

Re: 2013 Game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jon-s (Post 1170849)
How about a surface with lots of bumps (may be too hard to implement) or obstacles (like the minibot pole bases)?

I think more of an open field would be really great – the perfect course for the most agile, most maneuverable, and most drivable robot is what I'm hoping for.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebflippers (Post 1170854)
As a programmer I would love to see more autonomous time next game. Maybe 30 seconds?

That's true. Maybe a little more...maybe even 100% autonomous! :ahh: Who's with me? :D

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.

Tristan Lall 21-05-2012 20:23

Re: 2013 Game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by brennonbrimhall (Post 1170858)
That's true. Maybe a little more...maybe even 100% autonomous! :ahh: Who's with me? :D

I think you're alone on that one. I'd estimate 5% of the teams could pull that off now, 15% could figure it out during a build season, and the other 80% would fail.

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.

jon-s 21-05-2012 20:46

Re: 2013 Game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sebflippers (Post 1170854)
As a programmer I would love to see more autonomous time next game. Maybe 30 seconds?

the short autonomous period is the one thing I like less about frc than fll (fully autonomous). on the other hand, it would be a big game-changer.

Andrew Lawrence 21-05-2012 21:13

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.

avanboekel 21-05-2012 21:26

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.

Walter Deitzler 21-05-2012 21:32

Re: 2013 Game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by avanboekel (Post 1170875)
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.

What if there was more to do in Autonomous. Instead of one task to be performed, there were many possible tasks? This would make autonomous pretty interesting and fun to watch.

Robogineer1649 22-05-2012 00:41

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.

Siri 22-05-2012 01:34

Re: 2013 Game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by LedLover96 (Post 1170878)
What if there was more to do in Autonomous. Instead of one task to be performed, there were many possible tasks? This would make autonomous pretty interesting and fun to watch.

Except that most of the teams now cannot make it interesting or fun to watch. (Remember, there are 2,343 teams in FRC this year...how many autonomous modes make you go "wow"?)

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?

Ekcrbe 23-05-2012 17:45

Re: 2013 Game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Siri (Post 1170936)
Except that most of the teams now cannot make it interesting or fun to watch. (Remember, there are 2,343 teams in FRC this year...how many autonomous modes make you go "wow"?)

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?

Well, football does. It's on its own island in that respect, however.

lorem3k 23-05-2012 18:56

Re: 2013 Game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sebflippers (Post 1170854)
As a programmer I would love to see more autonomous time next game. Maybe 30 seconds?

I'd like to see a longer autonomous period as well. The longer the autonomous time is, the more variables there are that need to be accounted for, which would help programmers learn about some of the challenges faced in "real-world" situations like automated assembly lines.

jon-s 05-06-2012 14:21

Re: 2013 Game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Siri (Post 1170936)
FLL isn't an interactive head-to-head sport; FRC is (I think because, well, it's high school).

FRC is a head to head competition not so much because it's for highschool, as that all the robots are in one large field (like most team oriented sports) and are thus able to interfere/aid one another. It would be drastically more difficult (many programmers already struggle with the current autonomous) if the whole FRC game was autonomous.

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.

Siri 05-06-2012 17:46

Re: 2013 Game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jon-s (Post 1172781)
FRC is a head to head competition not so much because it's for highschool, as that all the robots are in one large field (like most team oriented sports) and are thus able to interfere/aid one another. It would be drastically more difficult (many programmers already struggle with the current autonomous) if the whole FRC game was autonomous.

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.

Of course, yes. At the manifest level, (virtual) autonomous works because FLL robots compete individually, whereas FRC work many at once. But can't be the root cause--FIRST themselves decided those structures.

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:

Originally Posted by Ekcrbe (Post 1171234)
Well, football does. It's on its own island in that respect, however.

Oh :o Ok. I thought it was like two. (The running thing and the kicking thing, yeah?) Maybe that sort of supports FIRST simplifying its rules for quasi-spectators. Lucky football doesn't have to rely on its own quasi-spectators like me!

EricH 05-06-2012 18:05

Re: 2013 Game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Siri (Post 1172804)
Oh :o Ok. I thought it was like two. (The running thing and the kicking thing, yeah?) Maybe that sort of supports FIRST simplifying its rules for quasi-spectators. Lucky football doesn't have to rely on its own quasi-spectators like me!

Actually...

-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).

KevinGoneNuts 07-06-2012 16:57

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?

EricH 07-06-2012 17:52

Re: 2013 Game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinGoneNuts (Post 1173115)
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?

You mean like 2000, but with stacking objects instead of filling troughs? That could be highly entertaining. And in informal CD polling, 2000 is one of the best-liked games, right up there with 2004, 2006, and 2010 (and possibly 2012).

OliviaG 08-06-2012 13:08

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.

Gregor 08-06-2012 21:56

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).

EricH 09-06-2012 17:37

Re: 2013 Game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Gregor01 (Post 1173300)
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).

2003's Human Player mode would fit it quite well, I think.

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"?

Chris Fultz 09-06-2012 18:01

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.

Gregor 09-06-2012 18:46

Re: 2013 Game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Fultz (Post 1173373)
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.

oh please.

sithmonkey13 09-06-2012 20:54

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.

Gregor 10-06-2012 00:15

Re: 2013 Game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sithmonkey13 (Post 1173382)
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.

2006 and 2009 were very similar in terms of robot specs. Intake with (maybe a hopper and) a shooter.

Banderoonies 10-06-2012 17:08

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.

Gregor 10-06-2012 17:25

Re: 2013 Game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Banderoonies (Post 1173429)
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.

inb4cries of a water game

JosephC 10-06-2012 19:46

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?

EricH 10-06-2012 20:10

Re: 2013 Game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JosephC (Post 1173444)
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.

I've cut out most of the post due to length, but I must ask one question: How deep is the pool? 3"? 3'? 8'? And how big of an area will it cover? Think very carefully about all the implications before you answer.



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.

JosephC 10-06-2012 20:22

Re: 2013 Game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by EricH (Post 1173446)
I've cut out most of the post due to length, but I must ask one question: How deep is the pool? 3"? 3'? 8'? And how big of an area will it cover? Think very carefully about all the implications before you answer.

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.)

Answer 1: Average swimming pool size I suppose.

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...

EricH 10-06-2012 20:47

Re: 2013 Game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JosephC (Post 1173448)
Answer 1: Average swimming pool size I suppose.

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...

I think that switching to venues that happen to have pools is a coincidence. FWIW, most high schools in the U.S. would have a pool (or have one nearby), but would also be cheaper to put a FRC event in than a sports arena. With FRC moving to more events for less money, it just makes sense to go to cheaper venues. Whether said cheaper venues have a pool or not at that point is a non-issue--it just turns out that way or not.

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...

JosephC 10-06-2012 20:59

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.

EricH 10-06-2012 21:14

Re: 2013 Game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JosephC (Post 1173460)
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.

I have to say, a tent over the pool might help... but it depends on the type. Also see "Epcot parking lot pits" and "It comes in anyway" for an enclosed or a popup, respectively.

JosephC 10-06-2012 22:59

Re: 2013 Game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by EricH (Post 1173463)
I have to say, a tent over the pool might help... but it depends on the type. Also see "Epcot parking lot pits" and "It comes in anyway" for an enclosed or a popup, respectively.

We actually managed to fit 25 team's pits under a enclosed tent with the field. And that was with the other 1/2 being used by Robofest.

DampRobot 10-06-2012 23:39

Re: 2013 Game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by EricH (Post 1173452)
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).

After all these years thinking that a water game would be a boon for a swimmer, I just realized that it would involve kicking me out of my pool for long periods of time! I suppose build season does this anyway...

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?

JosephC 10-06-2012 23:45

Re: 2013 Game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DampRobot (Post 1173475)
After all these years thinking that a water game would be a boon for a swimmer, I just realized that it would involve kicking me out of my pool for long periods of time! I suppose build season does this anyway...

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?

They might actually happen. It would remove the "mystical" part.

Ekcrbe 11-06-2012 09:35

Re: 2013 Game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Gregor01 (Post 1173393)
2006 and 2009 were very similar in terms of robot specs. Intake with (maybe a hopper and) a shooter.

But scoring those balls, driving, and the endgame were drastically different. The 2009 challenge was very heavy on being able to drive effectively compared to other years.

Ekcrbe 11-06-2012 09:39

Re: 2013 Game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JosephC (Post 1173444)
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?

A. It was a thought we joked around with at lunch after a demo one day, not something we actually expect to happen.

B. SPELL MY NAME RIGHT! I'm on your team.

EricH 11-06-2012 13:54

Re: 2013 Game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JosephC (Post 1173473)
We actually managed to fit 25 team's pits under a enclosed tent with the field. And that was with the other 1/2 being used by Robofest.

Not bad. I just remember in Florida a few weeks back, 55 robot teams (college level) in an enclosed tent. They fit with plenty of space, but the air conditioning needed help, though it was better than outside. (The field, for other reasons, was in a different enclosed tent. That A/C still needed help, but not because of number of people--everyone in that tent was in a "bunny suit". See my avatar if you don't know what one is.)


Yeah, I think water game just gets too much attention. So, I say we try for a curling-based or cricket-based game...

Gregor 11-06-2012 15:59

Re: 2013 Game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by EricH (Post 1173536)
So, I say we try for a curling-based (snip) game

Sounds like regolith :mad:

Gregor 16-06-2012 18:13

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

JosephC 17-06-2012 23:30

Re: 2013 Game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Gregor01 (Post 1174278)
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

Only if I get a full harnness :rolleyes:

lucasking94 23-07-2012 17:36

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.

Anupam Goli 23-07-2012 21:47

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!

Wayne TenBrink 24-07-2012 11:56

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.

AlecMataloni 24-07-2012 12:25

Re: 2013 Game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wayne TenBrink (Post 1179000)
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.

Using PVC pipe as a game piece has already been done by FTC in 2010 with "Get Over It" and I have to say that the execution was particularly bad. Few teams could actually pick up and score the game pieces. I remember being in the division near the FTC field while playing Logomotion. Watching those FTC elims matches was painful .

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