Chief Delphi

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   Rumor Mill (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=15)
-   -   Ideal FRC Game (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=110318)

ChristopherSD 01-01-2013 22:52

Re: Ideal FRC Game
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by LedLover96 (Post 1206401)
A lot of bot on bot action would be nice. An open field with few safe zones, and intense defensive possibilities.

Safe zones are for the weak.

Damiaen_Florian 01-01-2013 23:05

Re: Ideal FRC Game
 
Honestly I would just like to see 2011 again

Except allow descoring of the tubes (probably could get pretty messy, but I would still like to see some concepts that teams could come up with)

Oh and make the minibots worth less points, what I was thinking was 20pts. for 1st, 15 - 2nd, 10 - 3rd and 5- 4th, oh and maybe a little less value on coopertition as well

gyroscopeRaptor 01-01-2013 23:10

Re: Ideal FRC Game
 
Personally I would like an endgame like 2004 in the sense that all robots cannot possibly do the endgame and an alliance can move to deny the opposing alliance of the endgame.

Ian Curtis 01-01-2013 23:41

Re: Ideal FRC Game
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Justin Montois (Post 1206417)
I want a game with an Auto Mode that give you a significant bonus for completing, unlike 2009, 2010. Past two years have been perfect.

Why do you think they were undervalued? A bad (ie someone didn't move) autonomous in 2009 was basically a death sentence. In 2010 a typical alliance would score about 3 pts in the entire match, so a free shot on goal was actually a pretty big deal.

If anything I think hybrid in 2012 was if anything over-valued, more basket points were scored in hybrid than in teleop! Should 15 seconds be more important than 2 minutes?

Quote:

Originally Posted by gyroscopeRaptor
Personally I would like an endgame like 2004 in the sense that all robots cannot possibly do the endgame and an alliance can move to deny the opposing alliance of the endgame.

You could have all four robots hang in 2004, it was just pretty crowded. I agree though, it would be fun for the crowd to see the return of a "fighting" end game.

Peyton Yeung 01-01-2013 23:44

Re: Ideal FRC Game
 
A central scoring area, little to no protected areas, less restrictions on robot design, and some sort of elevated robot end game.

A boy can dream right?

Donut 02-01-2013 00:22

Re: Ideal FRC Game
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by gyroscopeRaptor (Post 1206426)
Personally I would like an endgame like 2004 in the sense that all robots cannot possibly do the endgame and an alliance can move to deny the opposing alliance of the endgame.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ian Curtis (Post 1206433)
You could have all four robots hang in 2004, it was just pretty crowded. I agree though, it would be fun for the crowd to see the return of a "fighting" end game.

My ideal game would definitely include some sort of direct competition for the end game between the alliances, but I'd be satisfied with any well made end game given most of the games I've seen. Since 2004 only 2007 (lifting) and 2012 (balancing) have been exciting and worth a significant amount of points; 2011 was too fast to be exciting, 2009 was difficult and rarely utilized, and all other years were worth too little of points to matter.

Other features of a good game are easy to obtain game pieces, an autonomous period that provides an advantage/bonus to the winner of it (not just "move or die" ala 2009), and a good point balance between scoring methods. Games that can be explained in less than 30 seconds are a plus.

z_beeblebrox 02-01-2013 00:33

Re: Ideal FRC Game
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SuperNerd256 (Post 1206404)
I'd like to see another game where teams can hold an infinite number of game pieces, but make it so that handling more than 1 is natural (ie it was awkward for most handling two tetras in 2005).

I second that. You haven't been able to hold a large number of game pieces since Lunacy and it seems fun to design a high-capacity robot. I think that 1-2' pieces of 1' PVC pipe could be fun. Maybe some kind of defensive end-game.

apalrd 02-01-2013 00:39

Re: Ideal FRC Game
 
Good things about a game:

-Easy to understand scoring objectives and at least relative weighting (e.g. higher goals are better) for the audience. This is the highest objective.

-Lowest level task is approachable by a weak teams
-Highest level task is a challenge for the best teams

-There are not too many ways to score. In fact, as few as possible different ways to score is better. Varying the height or size of targets but leaving the scoring otherwise the same, is considered one way to score.

-Autonomous has to be worth doing.

-Endgame has to be worth doing. It should have the capability to swing most matches if executed well or failed, but not so much that winning or loosing it is totally devastating for the loser (2011 fails, it's worth too much). The bridges of 2012 are well-balanced. 2010 is actually fairly close to balanced, only because the average team could score so little.

-The winning move must always be to win, as an alliance There are some cases where the seeding system changes so the winning move might be to not win. That makes little sense to the audience (who are very important). In 2012, the cooperatition bridge was very very bad for this in quals. In 2010, there were some cases where it was desirable to score for the opposing alliance in a '6v0' match play, or even to score for them after (or even before in one case) guaranteeing a win for yourself to game the seeding system, which heavily weighted close wins over total blowouts (the winner received their score + 2x losers score + 5pts, the loser received only the winners score). The winning move in Elims is always to win, anything that really changes the game between Quals and Elims will make the game confusing for spectators and will reduce the quality of the seeding ranks.


And, for completely personal preference, I prefer games where the GDC does not limit the number of objects one team can carry. I do like games where its hard to carry multiples, and I like 2005. I also like 2005 and 2007 because I haven't personally written code for a double-jointed arm with linked motions outside of simulation (the 2011 elevator-arm is linked-state but the joints are not dependent on each other), and it would be fun. The 'Get Tetra From Belly' move sounds like fun too.

Tetraman 02-01-2013 00:46

Re: Ideal FRC Game
 
I have two simple wishes.

1. Water Cooler barrels as game pieces - most of them empty, some with a gallon of water in them, and two or three completely filled.

2. The game element that robots must score is parts of the field. Such as teams must "capture" parts of the field, and are given a score at the end of the game equal to the percentage of the field they owned at the end of the match.

ChristopherSD 02-01-2013 01:01

Re: Ideal FRC Game
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by apalrd (Post 1206446)
It should have the capability to swing most matches if executed well or failed, but not so much that winning or loosing it is totally devastating for the loser (2011 fails, it's worth too much).

SO MUCH RESPECT FOR YOU, SIR.

Gregor 02-01-2013 03:50

Re: Ideal FRC Game
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tubatroopa (Post 1206434)
A central scoring area, little to no protected areas, less restrictions on robot design, and some sort of elevated robot end game.

A boy can dream right?

So, 2007?

Astechz_Nick 02-01-2013 05:58

Re: Ideal FRC Game
 
I would like to see a FRC game based around hockey. For the endgame I would like to see either hanging like in 2004 or carrying other robots like in 2007.

dag0620 02-01-2013 08:57

Re: Ideal FRC Game
 
Stacking! I would absolutely love some concept of stacking tote bins again!

Also I want to diddo those who want a spectator friendly game that's easy to explain. As the main man for Public Relations, games such as 2008, 2010, and 2012, make my job so much easier.

ToddF 02-01-2013 10:17

Re: Ideal FRC Game
 
How about a game where the robots are the playing pieces, and the difficulty is navigating the playing field? The object is to touch the far side wall, for 10 points, then your own side to reset. The obstacle is that there is a 6 foot high wall in the center of the field. The wall has two openings (red and blue), 1'x2', three feet off the floor, where the red and blue ramps were this year. Robots may go through the slots or over the wall. Only robots that match the slot color may pass through the slots, and preventing a robot from going through a slot is a penalty. Autonomous scores are worth 30 points. End game is to be 5 feet above the floor, supported only by yourself and the wall (no other robots), 30 points. Coopertition points scored by assisting other robots to return to their side of the wall, 10 points. Halfway through the match, a section of the wall drops in the center (where the coop bridge was this year), leaving a 3 foot wide opening, 3 feet off the floor.

This game would encourage differentiation in robots. It would be difficult, but not impossible, to score yourself. There would be lightweight scoring robots that go over the wall or through the slots. There would be helper robots that help the scorers get through the slots or over the wall. Some might be able to do both.

Interesting twists could be made by playing with which side of the field is the scoring side (near or far). You could also play with making the wall either transparent, or opaque (or some combination).

To make it most interesting, robots start on the far side of an opaque wall. Robots are allowed to carry one video camera each, and the video feed from all the cameras on an alliance goes to all the operator stations on that alliance. So, even robots that never move during a match would at least provide valuable video to their partners. The video scoreboard would display the video feeds from all the robots on the field, so the spectators have the advantage of seeing both sides of the field, and also all the video feeds. Kind of like televised poker. If a drive team were good enough, they could watch the big board instead of their operator station, to see all six video feeds.

Defense is legal once a robot is on the floor, but would be difficult, since the defenders would only have video to drive by, and the scorers would have eyeballs on their robot.

In the simplest version of the game, with everyone playing nice, two ramp bots on each side sit by the slots and a scoring bot from each side races up and down the ramps, back and forth through the slots, scoring points. There would be lots of strategy around when to help your opponent return to their side of the field. Scoring robots that could score on their own have a big advantage.

Because of the size of the slots, previously developed, "stock" drivetrains won't be the biggest scoring bots. Robots which are small, light, fast, and can get through the slots on their own would be the best. If you stick with a previously developed drivetrain, you have to go over the 6 foot wall, help other bots through the slots, or wait until the center section drops, and fight to get through.

Edit: While we are dreaming, robot rules would allow the Arduino Controls Package (am-2316), to replace the CRIO, and robot electrical power to be provided by any 3C LiPo battery, as long as it was fully enclosed by a battery box of minimum 1/8" aluminum construction.

IKE 02-01-2013 10:43

Re: Ideal FRC Game
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Justin Montois (Post 1206417)
I feel like I posted something like this on here somewhere..but

I want a game with an Auto Mode that give you a significant bonus for completing, unlike 2009, 2010. Past two years have been perfect.
...snip!

I think you highly underestimated the importance of Auto Mode in 2010 and 2009. While 2009, you just needed to move (spinning worked well), if you didn't you were loaded up.

In 2010, clearing your zone, and sending balls to your home zone was huge. Getting those 3 balls into your home zone was a a potential 6 point swing.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 14:21.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi