Modern Upgrrade
 

Which Pre 2005 game would you think do best as a reboot for the three robot alliance era?

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

PLAYING ON CORN!!! ON A HEXAGONAL FIELD*!!!

Other than that I think that The huge PVC goals used in '94 as a central scoring position would be fun. Maybe add some addition on to them, such as in '96 (but not the same addition) and I think we could have a pretty fun game.


*yes it would be harder to accommodate at modern venues, but still, I can dream! :D

edit: oops I read it wrong. I thought you asked which game piece...

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

2003, further modified to give protection to stacking. Imagine the chaos of six robots charging the ramp (with bumpers, natch) going for the bins--and how a third robot could open up a number of widget robot options (bin thievery, stacking, ramp control). Lots of potential.

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

I would have to go with 2004. Might have to make the platform smaller to accommodate the two extra robots on the field but I think adding two more robots would make the hanging unbelievable.

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

While I absolutely love the 2004 game the field was crowded with four robots. It would look like an LA freeway at Rush hour with six robots out there. That platform took up the whole field area.
The 2003 game suffers from the same problem with the massive field element.
Nothing will ever make the 2001 or 2002 game better.
I have to read up more on the games back in the "good old days ( we have some of the old game pieces laying around the shop. The floppies from 1999 make decent pillows for those long nights at the shop). Retooling the games to a more modern upgrade means changing the field to the 27 x 54 shape that things are today by the way.

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

You sure? Imagine if 2001 were played 3v0-plus-3v0, the field split long-ways with no crossover unless a ball bounces across of its own accord. I think the close quarters and drag-race concept (balls, balance, end zone) might work.

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

I said stack attack purely for the awesomeness of knocking over a tower of crates.

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

Please no reboots. I'm so sick of reboots. Hollywood has ruined them for me. I don't even reboot my computer anymore.

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

killjoy.;P

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

Toroid Terror has already had a reboot. The 2007 game Rack 'n' Roll had almost all the same elements except the multiplier by capping the top. Granted the tubes back then were much heavier and the paint had a hard time sticking to the tube.

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

I would say 2004. From what I've seen the robots were diverse. I think since there were so many things to do at the same time if the 2004 game was 3v3 the 3rd bot on each alliance could really help. From what I can gather there were 3 major things to do: hanging, collecting and depositing 5pt balls, capping goals. I think given a 3 robot alliance, all three roles could be done without any one robot having to do more than one task. Plus the fight for a spot on the hanging bar could be more fierce with 6 bots.

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

I think the game designs are much more polished nowadays, but I would love to go back to the games pre-modern games, when some of the robots of FIRST lore were born, permitted under looser construction rules. That's what I really want to see return from the older games, and that's why I want to be a part of one of those games.

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

That's exactly why I wouldn't want 2004 rebooted in 3v3. Teams doing multiple, diverse tasks in the same game was one of the best elements of 2004. I loved seeing the ridiculous ways teams like 71 and 190 figured out how to cap while hanging or the awesome multi-purpose drive mechanisms. Having more tasks than robots to fill them was what made that game so special.

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

Maybe I'm just nostalgic for my rookie year but having to fight for the end game bonus was amazing in 2003. Similar in 2004 as well where you could score the end game and block someone else at the same time. That hasn't been possible since then.

Most of the recent rules have protected the end game from direct defense and confrontation. The huge penalties for interfering with the mini bot or bridge balance for example. Watching Wildstang flip people back down the ramp at the 2003 Championship is still one of my clearest memories in FRC. (FYI, if you have never seen that robot view their award submission here.) However 2003 was plagued with a horrendous elimination round scoring system. My team won our regional only because we allowed our opponent to score enough points and that shouldn't happen.

However the ramp would never work in 3v3 but I think getting back to head to head end games could be interesting. Although, that would put a bigger emphasis back on drive trains; which FRC has tried to move away from in recent years.

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

I had to vote for Stack Attack since that was our first Champs win. However, in terms of rules, I disliked some of the rules. We took our stacker off early in the season although it seemed from a strategy standpoint to be a game winner except the stacks could not be protected and that basically negated any work done by the human player. We could get 8-10 high in practice. Bomb Squad was ridiculously fast that year, about twice as fast as us.
I have stated many times that I believe games in which the human player can make a difference are some of my favorites.
Toroid Terror and Ramp Riot are two of those that I think excelled at human player interactions.

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

2003 all the way. One of the easiest to adapt in the reboot, plus newer technology could make the field a lot more interesting, and could add some unique small things to the game.

Plus there's just something about robots speeding up the ramp, ramming into the bins, and see them crashing down that just makes me giddy with excitement. :D

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

Honestly, even though 2004 would be super crowded, seeing 3 robots tackle the various elements would be great to watch. It would be sort of like watching a Triathlon where all 3 events were going on at the same time. A bit crazy and unpleasant for newcomers to watch, but it would be so great to play and watch as an FRC vet. Other than that, 2003 seems pretty ideal as the next best.

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

If you guys are calling for 2003, there was a game-breaker that year. It wasn't necessarily blocking the top of the ramp... Two teams figured out how to take down the wall without moving. They went head-to-head in one match. Yes, there was a winner. (Yoda, by name...) Yes, I remember which teams they were. Yes, I think I could figure out how to build such a robot under most of the current rules and restrictions...

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

What teams and how did they manage that? Do you have any video?

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

I don't think I can find any, but 234 and 980 built the robots. Basic automode was to extend and swing an arm across the ramp. Goodbye boxes. 234's had two pivots; 980's had 1 but telescoped out, then telescoped in after being raised to vertical (then latched stowed). After that, they'd climb the ramp or try to defend a stack.

As I recall, 980 got to the boxes first when they went against each other.

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

71 also made a similar design.

234 versus 980
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/15501
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/15509
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/15510
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/15511
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/15512

71 for reference
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/16233

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

71, 234, and 980 combined for 1 finalist award and no wins at 9 events (71 at West Michigan). It's very creative, but hardly a game-breaking strategy.

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

I remember one match where we played one of them. We had wings that deployed in order to push a large number of bins. When we played that match we ran our autonomous in low gear. It made it very slow, which was exactly how to beat it. When we turned the corner to head toward the ramp, all of the boxes were still in front of us. We just slowly bulldozed them over to the other side.

With all that being said, it was still a pretty cool idea and was usually very effective.

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

Agreed. Several other teams (148 included - way before I was on the team) built similar robots.

-John

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

Ladder Logic please.

But we played the remake for 2001 this year (bridge and cooperate with opponents for common goal), and the 2002 remake in 2009 (goals, balls, and movement is key).

And if you didn't say Pre-2005, I would have said 2005.

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

2003.

Bumpers optional.

Make stacked robots on the platform worth endgame multipliers.

Make 68's robot legal, just for fun.

Get rid of the elimination round points system. Burn it. Nuke it. Kill it with fire.

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

I think we can all appreciate power and hitting things, but this wouldn't make a good FIRST game at all.

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

Sounds good to me;)!

But we'd have to pull it down from the Graveyard and put it back together.

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

I remember this robot very well, it was ridiculous - in a good way. This was the first year for autonomous mode in FRC and we knew pretty quickly how the match was going to go within the first 10 seconds of the match. We spent the rest of the match fighting for the hill and sometimes ending up on our back. I tried to find better pictures, I'm going to have to dig through some old hard drives to find videos -



I'm not sure which was more complicated, 234's 2003 or 2004 robot with the 2 foot long, 2" diameter cylinder used to hang the robot.

If I could see a game play again, it would be 2003 or 2004. You won't see a game like either of those ever again.

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

I can't believe how many people liked 2003. Do you know how hard it was to clean the field after a day of competition? The ramps had to be moved so we could get debris. At one competition, we were picking up nearly a 5 gallon bucket each day.

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

We all know "ease of cleaning the field" is one of the main indicators of game quality. ;)

-John

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

I think the reason its pre-2005 is because the OP asked which game to bring back with 3 robot alliances, which if I remember right Triple Play was 3-on-3, so if you're talking about modernizing it that way, you can't because it was the first 3 robot alliance game.

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

I have to agree with Adam on this one guys. I even remember a story that he told me during season about how he was explaining 2011 to one of our sponsors and they were simply puzzled as to why that game challenge was created. If FIRST wants to have success year after year when it comes to games, they need to recognize that the games need to emulate simple tasks but tasks that people can follow play by play. (Real time scoring helped improve that mentality this year and I hope that the same continues to play out)

The yearly challenges don't have to be hard to understand and FIRST nailed that on the head this year given the task was playing basketball.

I would like to see FIRST take one of the more abstract games and make it just as fun and understandable for next year. *cough 2005/2000 *cough

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

Me either. I thought that was the worst game ever. Most of the robots (my team included) were just booooooring that year. However, it had potential to be a great game. I think with a few changes, it could be great.

I would start with getting rid of the Sterilite containers and make the game pieces symmetric about all 3 axes. The problem with stacking that year is you first had to be able to manipulate the bins into the proper orientation before you could even think about stacking them. It was just too difficult of a task to bother with (especially considering how easy it was to knock the stach over). Make the objects cubes and it becomes a much more realistic task. The only problem is will be tough finding off-the-shelf game pieces.

The second thing is that it was too easy to destroy stacks once they were made. There needs to be some stack protection, either in an area on the field, or after a time. A rule was needed like you can't destroy a stack in the last 30 seconds of a match, or maybe you can't touch stacks in the colored area of the field.

With those changes to encourage more stacking robots, the game could turn out to produce some of the coolest robots we've seen. I think I could get on board with that game.

Even with all of that being said, 2000 was BY FAR the best game FIRST ever had. That game would get monster ratings on television. My 2nd favorite was 1998 (Ladder Logic).

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

Ya 'cause I'm so looking forward to resetting a field with 102 sacks!

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

It's funny how polarizing 2003's game was. Stack Attack was either loved or hated by those who participated in it.

I have always felt adding one tweak to Stack Attack would help gameplay. Basically this:
-For any robot to score points by being "King of the Hill", their alliance must have a stack of at least 2 high.

I haven't really fully baked out how the gameplay would evolve, but my thoughts were that it would force alliances to worry about the bins. You would also get collaboration between team members to "stack" robots on each other, as most likely you will have one representative from each alliance parked on top. A team member would have to be designated as stack builder/protector, less your alliance risks scoring 0 King of the Hill points.

Just a silly idea I've had for a while.

-Brando

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

What if stacks multiplied the bridge bonus points? Maybe 5-10pts/robot instead of 25, but you see the idea. That might engage stacking as a real part of the game.

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

I think it was the whole everyone speeding towards a huge wall of bins that did it for me. The tele-operated portion was pretty flawed, but I loved this autonomous portion of the game. It was so unpredictable.

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

Perhaps something like the foam cubes used in gymnastics or stunts? I've always thought something like this would make a cool game piece since we rarely have cube/square pieces.

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

They wouldn't hold up... just look how many foam balls were chewed to death this year and in 2006.

Maybe milk crates would be a better option?

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

At a certain point it's almost impossible to pick a game piece immune to destruction.

I can't think of a single game that didn't have issues with breaking pieces.

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

I cant remember a time in 2010 when someone popped or flattened a soccer ball.

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

At one point, shortly after the 2003 game, Dave addressed the bin-breaking issue. He said he was working on a design for a bin made out of concrets so it wouldn't break.


I think it's also a good idea to note that I'm currently looking at about 3 of 330's practice bins, which are currently being used for storage... After hitting concrete and bricks due to persons on dollies, robots going up and over the ramp, and I think we were even able to get 2 robots going at once at some point.

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

I never saw one popped, but I saw their surfaces severely damaged on many occasions which prohibited proper function of most team's intakes.

2010 brings up a point about gamepieces that I wish FIRST would focus more on; use actual sports gamepieces when possible, ideally quality brands. They are likely going to be more consistent and durable than other options.

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

Define severely damaged because I saw a bunch of balls with some cuts or big scrapes where the outer paint was taken off but it never seemed to impede the team's using them.

I also do agree that first should use brand name, quality sporting goods as future game pieces. 2 good reasons why are because they are quality and if they are name brand they wont run out at Wal-Mart.

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

We did during a match in Orlando when we shattered our wheel (a lot went wrong that match) we didn't notice it till we went to remove it from the field

They are also more dangerous when manipulated by robot as Dean can testify to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnE0j69_gYk

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

116 had an arm like that as well, but it was only long enough to take out the nearest couple columns.

A lot of familiar faces in that video...

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

John, I was more pointing to the need to disassemble the field to pick up that much junk. However, we are still using the bins. How many games have that kind of lasting influence on teams?

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

I agree with you on that.

I usually consider the first "Modern" game to be Aim High, which was a year later in 2006.

It's not that big of a surprise to me that many like Stack Attack...but I find it interesting how many want to see the game be upgraded and replayed. I wouldn't want to go anywhere near that game system again...but I would be interested in trying to figure out a better way to play it. I'll make it a side project.

Also there are two r's in Upgrade in the thread title.

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

One could debate the start of the modern era starting in 2005 with the introduction of the Kitbot as we (roughly) know it and 3v3 play, but no matter.

As for Stack Attack, I think it's because of three things:

1) We haven't had anything like stacking bins on the field in the cRIO era. You might (might!) be able to argue tetras in 2005...but that was eight years ago. It's a fresh challenge.

2) The robots are way different now than they were in 2003. Back then, you didn't have AndyMark (they were just then shaking off the Small Parts era), you had the obnoxious drill motor gearboxes, there were no bumpers, and you definitely didn't have anything like the modern kitbot. With some semblance of stack protection, you take that fresh challenge and make it a very fresh challenge.

3) FIRST hasn't really had that many games in recent years where there was more than one right answer (you could argue the 4334 and the mailbox dumpers this year, or 469 in 2010...but those were exceptions). With a hypothetical Fixed Stack Attack, you have a lot of answers--arm knock-down, big-sweeper knock-down, stacking specialist, king of the hill control. There are trade-offs to each approach, and that is what has me geeked about the idea.

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

Why so few for 1999 (double trouble)? It's original form might have been not so interesting, but if you upgrade it (actually score the floppies, for example) and keep the aspect of fighting over the puck and you have a very good game.

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

I say 2006 because of Bumpers, but it really doesn't matter when the Modern Era officially starts.

I agree with the first and third point. Other than Tube Scoring, there hasn't been much "Manual Object Scoring", and the events have been dominated with shooting or launching of balls. Stacking robots in 2007 was exciting, but it does seem like it's time for stacking and/or stack protection. What if the game was about protecting a series of stacks from invading robots, and rebuilding stacks that were broken down can earn back lost benefits? then you'd have Shield Bots and Defense Bots and Stack Bots and Multi Bots. The problem of Stack Attack has to be in the King of the Hill end game. I have a feeling it would be Co-Op Points related in a future game.

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

2003 showed it's far easier to break down than to build up. There needs to be a protected stacking zone, but perhaps the open space allows for some risk-and-reward by making stacks worth more there. Human players get a zone to orient bins as desired and push them back into the field--a team that can reorient them with the robot has an advantage, but a team that can only stack one way isn't out of the game.

And since it's not a FIRST game these days without an element of coopertition, a special zone in front controlled by red and blue lights to take turns. Red (flip a coin) puts a bin in place, and the light goes to blue. Blue stacks a bin, the light goes to red. Repeat and award coopertition points (to be used as a first tiebreaker after wins, losses, and ties, FIRST...) based on the height of the finished stack.

PS: Having read the way eliminations worked, use the modern method.

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

FYI that type of coopertiton was a new feature Rebound Rumble (not seen in previous games)... I personally suspect that type of coopertition will be like minibots were in 2011 and will not be seen in 2013.

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

Why not keep the king of the hill endgame mechanic? Each robot on the top is worth x points, but one of each must be up there to get coop points.

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

Building off of the "modern era" debates, here's an incomplete timeline of significant changes from year to year. This is purely off of memory, so I apologize for mistakes or missed events. Feel free to edit/add whatever events.


1999 - Alliances (2v2) introduced
2000 - Optional bumpers
2001 - 4v0 alliances
2002 - Return to 2v2 alliances
2003 - Introduction of autonomous
2004 - "Powerful" CPU with programming in C instead of BASIC
2005 - 3v3 alliances, fixed elimination alliance (no more rotating in a partner), no more drill motor in kit of parts, switch from 130lb (with battery) to 120lb (no battery) weight limit, introduction of kitbot, introduction of vision targets
2006 - Current bumper design introduced (still optional), wedges disallowed, introduction of serpentine alliance selection
2007 - Different height/weight classes (4ft/120lb, 5ft/110lb, 6ft/100lb)
2008 - Mandatory bumpers, return to 5ft/120lb
2009 - FiM district system, switch from IFI controller to cRIO
2012 - MAR district system

In my mind, it's pretty clear that 2005 was a watershed year for FIRST in many ways. There was a bigger shift from 2004 to 2005 than any recent switchover in games.

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

[my additions in bold]

1999 - Alliances (2v2) introduced
2001 - 4v0 alliances
2002 - Return to 2v2 alliances
2003 - Introduction of autonomous
2004 - "powerful" CPU with programming in C instead of BASIC
2005 - 3v3 alliances, fixed elimination alliance (no more rotating in a partner), no more drill motor in kit of parts, switch from 130lb (with battery) to 120lb (no battery) weight limit, introduction of kitbot, introduction of vision targets
2006 - Optional bumpers, wedges disallowed, introduction of serpentine alliance selection
2007 - Different height/weight classes (4ft/120lb, 5ft/110lb, 6ft/100lb)
2008 - Mandatory bumpers, switch from IFI controller to cRIO, return to 5ft/120lb
2009 - FiM district system
2012 - MAR district system

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

I've said it every year before and I'll say it some more. One year we need to have cones as our game piece. They're heavy, flexbile, durable, stackable, and commonly attainable. I'd vote for a 2003 game repeat with some slight modifications and with any number of a variety of traffic cones, most of which are cheap. I mean, geez, someone built a dang concert pavilion out of cones! I'm sure we can adapt a game to use them.

FYI Sean, the cRIO was introduced at the 2008 championships and saw its first competition in 2009.

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

Your memory is pretty good. I'm pretty sure the first year for optional bumpers was 2000. Back then there was no mandatory construction method, so ChiefDelphi use a carbon fiber (I think) skirt to act as their bumpers under the rules that year: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/12941

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

I think you can see it next to CD5, forgive my son for standing on the trophy.



Kids!

-Clinton-

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

I just can't get over the fact that this robot... one which played a large role in my becoming an engineer... is just chilling in the Jenkins' living room.

So cool.

-John

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

As I recall the later bumper rules (say, the 03-05 bumper rules), if you wanted to use a bumper, it had to make weight with the rest of the robot and had to not be made of hard material, or something like that. I don't remember if they got an "outside the box" allowance or not. And I think that skirt sure looks like sheet metal, where the team nametags aren't...

Though I do seem to remember hearing about somebody building bumpers that acted as weight transfer devices: you drive into them, they lift you up slightly.

2006 was also the first year that bumpers didn't have to make the robot weight. A lot of people figured out that you wanted more weight for a variety of reasons relating to CG and immobility, and so a lot of robots carried bumpers even though they were optional.


Oh, and Jesse: Seconded on the cones. Traffic cones, athletic cones--just get some cones in there. (Hide a kitbot in a road barrel--if both alliances catch it as it drives around at the end of the game, coopertition points.)

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

By far the 2003 autonomous was the most thrilling to watch, robots interacting in one place during auto was so thrilling. It seems all the auto periods recently are just too safe and not as spectacular as they were back in stack attack. It adds a very big unknown into the game which I hope returns at some point.

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

I like where you're going with this! The possibilities seem to be endless :D

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

From 2000
M2. Robots must sit, unconstrained, inside a 36”x30" rectangular footprint and be no more than 60" high at the start of a match. The weight of the robot, including battery, bumper, and control system, may not exceed 130.0 pounds.

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

Wasn't that the rule that resulted in robots that got stuck in build rooms when teams forgot how narrow the doorway was?

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

1996 was 36" x 36" x 36"
They fixed this in 1997.

-John

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

They fixed it in 1998. I remember having this problem in 1997 as the dimensions were 36x36 that year. :p

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

I see... My knowledge of games 2008 and prior (especially pre 2006) is patchy... as is my understanding of doorway dimensions (brain fart). Oh well. You learn something every day.

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

Larry,
Many venues (of which there were only a couple of regionals at that time) had the maintenance crew take out the center post on some of the doorways so robots could be moved. Our Ladder Logic (1998) robot looks to be close to 36x36 too. http://www.wildstang.org/gallery2/v/...g_jpg.jpg.html
I might be able to check dimensions tonight. The ball was pretty big though. I don't have any rules pre-2001.

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

(realizing this thread is from 2012): Well, for 2015, we got the highest voted result of Stack Attack in the form of Recycle Rush.

Not remembering 2003's elim point system, we got 3-4 out of 5 of those points (1. stacking, 2. bumpers optional, 4. no horizontal dimension limits on-field)

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

Unfortunately, we did get the point system, in all its ugliness.

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

hmmmmn......

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

It's not as ugly as 2003. If you were losing, you were incentivized to make sure that you scored as little as possible. The scores of the finals on Einstein were 12-130 and 52-10. The world championship alliance got blown out in the last match on Einstein (but not as badly as they blew out the other alliance in the first match).

Re: Modern Upgrrade
 

To quote Ken Patton in 2003 after our Einstein win...
"Sorry we lost that last match for you guys. Oh! That is what we were supposed to do."