Re: 2014 Game
 

a race or something to do with water would be pretty cool to build a robot that can manage that task

Re: 2014 Game
 

Tiddlywinks with manhole covers

Re: 2014 Game
 

"Welcome to the 2014 FIRST Robotics Competition, and this year's game, "Hat-trick!" Teams must hit small "hockey pucks" into their "end zone", an area near their alliance station. The pucks you need are at the bottom of a 10 foot deep "ice fishing pit". Teams will need to rappel down and retrieve pucks of their alliance colour. At the end of the game, bonus points will be given for scoring special pucks that will be found...on top of the human player's head in a white top hat. Teams must delicately lift the pucks from an opening in the top hat without "checking", or touching, the human player. Good luck and we'll see you at the competitions!"

Re: 2014 Game
 

I thought of hockey and then immediately thought of the hockey pucks used in Face Off in FTC.

Then again, I guess you could have a large field with 6 robots, regolith material, and play Robot Hockey?

Re: 2014 Game
 

Every time someone talks about a hockey game, I'm tempted to dig out my concept for one and revise it to be a little more realistic...

In terms of the actual 2014 game, though, I think the most important thing to consider is the "ball/not-ball/ball/etc." pattern that has held true for quite a long time, and if it holds we're due for some more balls next year...

Re: 2014 Game
 

It's late, even on the West Coast!


.... Water Balloons!!! :p

Re: 2014 Game
 

I feel that the 2014 game may involve pool noodles in some way, shape or, form.

For our preseason project out team actually 'made' our own game in which teams had to pick up noodles and put them in sleeves on the floor over a wall. The further away they were the more points.

I also feel minibots may be brought back but probably not to climb poles like in Logomotion.

Re: 2014 Game
 

1) It will not be a shooting game.
2) It will have terrain.
3) Balls will not be used.
4) End game involves zone scoring.

Re: 2014 Game
 

How about FTC's Bowled Over, but with KOP crates, and all the racquetballs replaced with bowling balls!

*Runs and hides because the GDC will probably use that idea now*

Re: 2014 Game
 

One thing that I would like to see is an end game that doesn't affect the score much, but rather affects seeding as the first tie breaker. With so few matches being played at most regionals the game should change to reflect this to allow better sorting in the standings. While more matches is the ultimate fix, if that is not possible then a change in the game could help solve some of the sorting woes. It should also be featured in the rules, not an anecdote hidden somewhere that no one pays attention to unless they are really looking.

Re: 2014 Game
 

3 Alliances

Re: 2014 Game
 

Re: 2014 Game
 

Hate to break it to you, but that is essentially the one thing that will never happen again. NEVER. Matter of fact, any odd number of alliances will pretty much be out (even numbers remain an option). And here's why.

Before 1999, alliances were one team apiece, three alliances on the field. Somewhere along the line, quite a number of teams used the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" strategy, and knocked some pretty good teams down the rankings a lot by essentially playing 2v1. Collusion could not be proved (and most likely there wasn't any intentional collaboration), but FIRST decided that it could also not be prevented, so therefore it must be required. Enter the alliance system, problem solved. Until...

The #1 game on the least-liked game list was one alliance of 4 teams versus the clock. Rack up the points before time runs out, multipliers for stopping really fast. No defense. This was in 2001. (OK, maybe a few teams liked it. But if it's not #1, then it's #2, right behind regolith in Lunacy.)

Now, you could have 5 alliances... or 7 alliances... but then the fields get ridiculously large, and you don't deal with any of the mismatch in number of teams. But if you had 4 alliances of 2 on the field... Maybe you end up with 2 alliances of 4, or maybe you end up with 6v2. Or maybe you get 8v0 unintentionally.

Re: 2014 Game
 

At the Dean's List Finalist Awards Ceremonies the presenter gave a hint about next years game. He said that Dean's List Winners will receive something that will be useful in next years game: A glow-in-the-dark Tape Measure.
So something to do with darkness or sensors?
Also during the Opening ceremonies and also during Dean's List Awards ceremonies Dean had said that he wants to spread FRC to be more attractive to viewers.
So something that is also pleasing and fun to watch! :D

Re: 2014 Game
 

This is a key point we need to remember. It's become a LOT easier on the non-initiated to watch FRC and figure out what is going on without having the WHOLE game explained to them in recent years. I'd argue 2010 was the closest to this paradigm (You got it in? You get a point!).

Going back to my first event (I was on a team in 2008, but did not go the regional w/ the team), 2009, 2011 and this year were the hardest to read in terms of people watching without any knowledge of the game beforehand. 2010 passes the test due to the easy correlation to Soccer, and 2012 passes because of the automated scorer and the correlation to basketball.

That said I don't think adapting a sports game to FRC is going to always the solution. Learning from the sports games, however is the key to making solid FRC games going forward. Easy, readable scoring (My goal would be "oh look they got it in, they got X points") and ideally solid automated scoring, with subtle nuances for the FIRSTer's to beat themselves up trying to solve.