Re: 2014 Game
 

Anyone think of non sport related games? Tetris maybe?

Re: 2014 Game
 

I would say, based on past experience, that the game piece will be roughly spherical for 2014. Whether or not it actually qualifies as a ball remains to be seen.


Past experience in question:
1997, non-spherical, followed by 1998, spherical.
1999, non-spherical, followed by 2000, spherical.
2003, non-spherical, followed by 2004, spherical.
2005, non-spherical, followed by 2006, spherical.
2007, non-spherical, followed by 2008, spherical.
2011, non-spherical, followed by 2012, spherical.

2013 had a non-spherical game object; therefore, if past experience is anything to go by, 2014 will have a spherical game object. (Also to be noted is that odd game pieces have tended to occur in odd years, while spheres of various types have tended to occur in even years, with 2001 and 2009 being the exceptions.)

Re: 2014 Game
 

There will be inflatable balls that cannot be thrown, and a step, bump, or strairs that robots must cross multiple times, like 2010/2012. Like the pyramid this year, there will be a large obstacle to overcome.

Re: 2014 Game
 

cannon balls:)

Re: 2014 Game
 

How about a sand based game? That would just be the best, talk about locked up motors and gearboxes!

Re: 2014 Game
 

Shooting these would be simple: Since a typical shooter with wheels would be out of the question due to friction issues, we will use air cannons! Or catapults/trebuchets.

Almost sounds like Punkin Chunkin! Except we could use a typical shooter with pumpkins.

Re: 2014 Game
 

And it's a water game. :D

I'd like to see a "carnival" game. You know...all the games you see at carnivals that are slightly rigged. That would be pretty fun IMO.

Re: 2014 Game
 

Hockey with hovercraft robots.

Re: 2014 Game
 

If they ever do a regolith field again hockey is the only way to go.

Re: 2014 Game
 

Well, I've put it off as long as I can (this is going to be long).

So let me start by reiterating the things that are important in a FIRST game. These are the things that FIRST needs to include and seems to be trying to include.
The most important aspect is having strategy choices. Dean and Woody love to make parallels between the game and real life. Ultimate Ascent was the pinnacle of this so far, but the GDC can achieve more if they think through it and are very objective.
Another very important thing is how fun the game is to watch. How fun the game is to watch relates directly to the amount of activity on the field which also poses a challenge for scouters.
As well as having an entertaining game to attract a crowd, having a game that can be explained easily is very important. It also benefits teams. Having a game you can understand as simply as “get the balls into the baskets” helps peoples’ comprehension rates and allows them to slowly “sink” into the more subtle rules and twists of the game and approach it in an organized manner. This goes back to work well with understanding how to put together an effective strategy.
Some people have been saying that FIRST needs to eliminate safe zones and allow more defense. This is a bad idea. You have two ways to win: Win by tearing your opponent down or win by rising above them. Which one do you think is a better example to set for thousands of students entering their next stage of life? FIRST is (and should be) making a trend of carefully balancing scoring and defense. The scoring is the main focus and the defense functions as a way to keep teams from getting lazy in their designs and strategies.
That brings up my next point. FIRST is going a great job promoting more robust robot designs. They should continue this trend (and probably will).

So, the popular suggestion seems to be hockey. I really like this idea. It would be unlike anything FIRST has implemented before. Hopefully it would involve actually hitting a puck around the field (like real hockey), as opposed to picking them up and depositing them in a goal. I wouldn’t have a problem with them bringing back some sort of very slick surface as long as the only purpose it serves is to allow the pucks to slide and not to impede robot movement. Look at professional hockey, the players have no problem moving around the field. In fact they move around a lot faster on ice than most people do off the ice. FIRST needs to allow us to solve the problem of maneuverability on the field with different types of wheels and materials making contact with the floor (not make us use those dumb hard plastic wheels). Oh, and don’t even think about making me put skates or skis on my robot.

The other popular game is some sort of stacking. FIRST had a REALLY bad experience with this in 2003 so they seem to be really shying away from it. They’re going to have to face it some year but if that year is 2014? We’ll have to see.
They don’t have to use cubes for stacking, but I really think they should. I don’t want to see those stupid tubs that when tipped over don’t stack! They also need to really get the scoring right. Forget all this crap about multiplier stacks. Do it right. My team hosts a summer VEX day camp every year. This year we had them stack wooden blocks. Our scoring was that each cube (when stacked in a special zone) was worth two more points than the one below it. So a stack of 1 is 1 point, a stack of 2 is 1 + (1+2) = 4, a stack of 4 is 1 + (1+2) + (1+2+2) + (1+2+2+2) = 16. Strangely this also means that a stack is worth its height (in cubes) squared. I didn’t notice it until after the fact.

Let’s talk about the glow in the dark tape measures. Try not focusing on the glow in the dark part. I would bet that it’s not important (it’s probably a Red Herring to distract you). However I could be wrong.
Dark fields are out of the question because they’ll make the game hard to watch in two ways. One because the spectators won’t be able to see, and two because the driving won’t be as good due to the decreased visibility. This also might result in some robots just sitting there because their drivers can’t see to safely drive them around.

I would really like to see the cylinder rule go away. Or at least be increased in size.

I think the chances of another shooting game are slim. It could happen, but I don’t want it to.

As for endgame, I think that minibots may make a return eventually. But I think it will still be a few years. They’re weren’t very fun to watch. And there wasn’t much creativity or flexibility involved in them.
FIRST hasn’t done a good ‘ol king of the hill for a while, so that could make a return sometime soon. It could also be coupled with a chin-up bar like in 2003.
A unique endgame that I would like to see implemented is climbing to the top of a rectangular pillar. They would just be robust boxes (with no lips, grooves, bars or any other place to grip) anchored to the floor. There would be several heights available with different point values associated.

For personal preference. I would like to see the concept from 2009, of goals attached to your opponents brought back and made to work better with a more standard field surface.
Another thing I would like to see is several hundred tennis balls on the field which have to be launched/dumped in huge quantities into horizontal goals (like the hoops from 2012). This would be quite amazing to watch I think.

Tell me what you think! :D

Re: 2014 Game
 

I would love to see a game where there are no rules as to how many game objects you can hold at one time during the match. I also think you are correct when you say it would be amazing to see say 100 tennis balls all being dropped into a goal in one swift action.

Re: 2014 Game
 

I would like to see a game where the robots have to actively work with each other and coordinate to accomplish the main goal like the bridges in 2012. So far each robot in an alliance doesn't need the others to score points for that alliance. It's 3 robots working individually to score points for the alliance not 3 robots working together to score points for that alliance. Other than the bridges in rebound rumble I don't recall robots on an alliance having to work together to manipulate a game piece and or field element to accumulate points.

Re: 2014 Game
 

You weren't around for 2010 (suspensions--one robot hanging off another that was already hanging--though those weren't used often if at all), 2007 (one or two robots climbing on the third alliance member virtually every match) or 2001 (oops, didn't mention the 4v0 bridge-balancing year, ignore that). 2008 and 1999 required coordination for some items; 2010 had some teamwork like passing from one zone to another.

Here is why you'll rarely see that, and why it'll even more rarely be the main main goal:

Random qualifiers.

If you have an item that requires more than two robots to accomplish it, you need to have it be important enough that everybody builds for it to some extent. Even for only two robots, you need only a subset to not build for it. Now, this isn't as important in eliminations, when the alliances are selected and stay together, but in quals...

Let's assume that y'all are paired with two random robots in the first match. You can handle half of the goal (or a third if it takes all three robots); one partner is a no-show because they're trying to trace something and miss their call (or their robot is still being inspected). The other partner is a Brave Little Toaster, AKA defense only (assuming the task isn't something a boxbot with no other mods can do). If that's a major goal you need to accomplish, you are stuck. And I do mean stuck. If you get lucky, your opponents are in a similar situation, so it balances out. If not, you draw two of the local powerhouses, and lose the match badly.

And, I point you to the "worth it" part. Triple balances were worth serious points in 2012; Co-op worth a lot too. The time before that that teamwork was required to accomplish the end goal--from all three robots-- was 2005: 10 points for all three robots being behind the end line. I can't recall a SINGLE instance of those 10 points being awarded. (For 2006 and 2007, a staggered point system was used: X robots in Y position worth Z points, X+1 or Y+1 worth Z+A, etc.)


Incidentally, the years and game elements that required the most coordination and cooperation tend to be some of the least-liked game elements, if not the least-liked years.



For Orion, you missed one CRITICAL element: It has to challenge the skilled veterans while still being easy enough for the rookies (and unskilled veterans, should there be any). This is a stated GDC objective. (Oh, and please don't swap the 2003 and 2004 games--it gets confusing after so many years, even for those who played them.)



Me personally? How about unlimited small balls on the robot that CANNOT be shot (preferably due to field design), but must be dumped into various goals somehow, a la 2000 or maybe 2002 (and recycling would be optional)? Or stacking traffic cones, another perennial favorite?

Re: 2014 Game
 

*Facepalm* Yeah I meant 2003. It's fixed now.

That's a good point. I kind of assumed it in the strategy choices part.
FIRST does want the games to be equally challenging for veteran teams and rookies, but it doesn't seem to affect every area of the game. Interestingly enough it does not seem to have a large effect on the game pieces. The balls from 2006 were very similar to 2012 and the tubes from 2007 and 2011 (not to mention the beach-balls that FIRST used extensively in their early years). That being said, we can be sure that next year won't be frisbees again.
FIRST levels the playing field by making games where it's hard (or impossible) for a robot to do everything.
Thanks for pointing that out. I thought I had covered that.