Re: 2013 Game?
 

Yeah I guess it would. I am searching for the robot equivalent of having to get a dresser up a flight of stairs. I once had to do it by myself. It was the longest hour of my life as moved the giant dresser one step at a time. It was so big, I could not grab it properly. It was not that heavy cause I took everything out but if I had a second person helping me, it would have been a 3 minute task.

So I am thinking of a robot task similar in theme where one robot could do it by itself but it will be very difficult. The crowd reaction could be, "that robot is going to actually try it by itself?" Maybe a dead lift of an elongated version of the 2002 goals? So one robots CG would be far away from the goal's CG.

That is another idea, if an alliances have a minimum score, the opposite team gets cooperation points.

It would encourage us as a community to help every robot to play the game. However, i think its a sad scenario if your alliance can't score and you need your opponents to score for you. Its kinda like the AYSO soccer mercy rules. I would feel even more bummed out if it happened to be. Ideally it would be that alliances won't play defense until the minimum scores are achieved.

Re: 2013 Game?
 

I think it could have something that has to do with this years FTC game. Last years FTC had balancing, and this year had balancing.

Re: 2013 Game?
 

I think they will have another game similar to this one.
easy to understand scoring/ interesting to general public.


so not tetras

Re: 2013 Game?
 

2005 was won by scoring more tetras and playing tic tac toe. I think that is pretty simple, I never had a student who struggled to grasp what 2005 game was after watching it. All you need to say, tetras are 3 points, controlling a row was 10 points. Simple

Re: 2013 Game?
 

I don't know what the nature of the game will be, but I think this graphic is particularly telling. It seems that 2012 was pretty universally acclaimed as a pretty enjoyable game, and @FRCFMS gave us data on how teams were scoring points. In Rebound Rumble, there was a pretty even distribution between the three parts of the game, teams scored about as many points in autonomous as they did in teleop, as they did in the endgame. There are obviously outliers, but in general it was pretty close. This would provide a good scoring roadmap as FIRST moves forward.



Now I'm kind of curious to see what this distribution looked like at the CMP though. There's something to be said for how the typical field plays the game versus the top tier, and the championship field was significantly outscoring the week 2 field.

Re: 2013 Game?
 

Aim High II.

With a high goal that doesn't jam and real time scoring.

Re: 2013 Game?
 

Sounds quite a bit like rebound rumble. Plus, I doubt that they would do similar shooting games two years in a row.

Re: 2013 Game?
 

Personally, I like the idea of tetras, batons, traffic cones, footballs, plastic bins... or other oddly shaped and unique game pieces. I even liked the inner tubes for logomotion and rack and roll, but by now inner tubes and balls seem like problems we've already solved. We know how to manipulate those game pieces and score them. So it's my hope that the GDC comes up with an interesting game piece for next year's game.

I was thinking instead of having 1 standard game piece we could have 3 different ones... they could be completely different or even just different sizes. So we'd have to build a device that could handle the 3 different game pieces, or 3 different devices... or we'd have to plan on manipulating only 1 or 2 of the game pieces... and the game pieces could all have different point values. I think it would be really interesting and challenging from both a design and strategic standpoint, making for interesting and different machines as well as gameplay.

Re: 2013 Game?
 

Something capture-the-flaggy would be cool.

Re: 2013 Game?
 

My idea isn't quite "if the opposing alliance has a certain amount of points, you get coopertition points", because in that case, if you were playing against a strong alliance you could just let them reach that score by themselves. I was thinking that one alliance would NEED to contribute a certain amount to their opponents' score to earn the bonus.

I do like the idea of a capture-the-flag style game, it would need an interesting field design though. A completely flat 27'x54' field without any sort of "base" that the flag is in would be somewhat awkward to defend.

Re: 2013 Game?
 

They did say something about better visibility too.

Re: 2013 Game?
 

Oh ok. I was thinking sort of the same thing, that an elite alliance needs to score for the other alliance too if they want the bonus. That having a 100-0 score would yield only the QP points of a win.


I am kinda reluctant about capture the flag, because in 2002 it was a battle between drivetrains with the highest gear reductions and traction possible. It inspiring for me to witness such great engineering but to go through that again with so many people knowing the tricks from that year would be grueling.

In 2002, I like teams like 60 that picked up the goals. So I was thinking it would be neat to see two robots trying to dead lift a massive goal for the cooperation bonus. The rules would prohibit two robots from the same alliance touching the goal. Then an elite team could figure out a way to do the process solo. like using an alliance partner as a counterweight.

In eliminations, two of the goals would be provided, one for each alliance.

Re: 2013 Game?
 

I would be interested in either a game with more contact, or control of more pieces being allowed. I think it would probably be a lot more exciting for non-FIRST spectators to watch with more robot n robot action, or with game pieces flying everywhere, instead of being so limited.

Re: 2013 Game?
 

Lets make the field a little easier to traverse as well. Box bots were next to useless this year as they couldn't lower the bridge or go over the barrier.

Last years game is an awesome example of how an even field allows box bots to be useful. 2010 wasn't too bad either since you could place them in the defensive zone from the beginning.

Re: 2013 Game?
 

If they keep following the same pattern they have been for the past few years, next year will have a flat field