Re: What if...
 

The idea of a 3 year cycle has been discussed within the game design committee, according to the Popular Mechanics supplement a few years ago and former FRC director Bill Miller's FRC Blog. The idea, I believe, was that the game would be slightly modified in years 2 and 3 to keep things fresh and only create a completely new game every three years. One of the advantages is that spectators would be able to figure out the games more easily from year to year.

Aerial Assist would make a decent candidate for a carry-over game design. It's reasonably spectator friendly, and it's simple enough that they could add something to the game without making it a huge sprawling mess of unrelated game pieces and field elements.

2 year cycles wouldn't bother me as long as the games were good. That probably gives us a simpler game and a more complex game in alternate years, which I think is ok. Any student that participates for at least 3 years would see at least two different games.

Continuing to refine a concept from the previous year would be an interesting spin. I'd be willing to try it and see how it goes.

Re: What if...
 

Aerial Assist, with the 2010 bumps!

But seriously I think whatever game is next year will require that we throw last year's drivetrain out the window. There will be some difficult obstacles to drive over, that our superflat robots won't be able to handle

Re: What if...
 

Perhaps the transition will be to a competition more like many Olympic events; where alliances are competing against the clock versus directly against one another. Before my time, but I understand there was such a game in the past.

Perhaps an improved version or alternate format of such a game as used in the past. The game could be structured to require alliances to cooperate on the completion of tasks, independent of the activity of another alliance. It could be that time remaining becomes a bonus and the first alliance to complete the tasks may assist the other alliance in completing the task, earning additional bonus points.

Perhaps the field will become 50% bigger at the championship event and there will be four team alliances throughout the competition.

Perhaps, at championships, the field will double in size and there will be four three-team alliances per match. Eliminations would be wild.

Re: What if...
 

Reuse fields: For the most part, they currently reuse fields, with the addition of game-specific field pieces.

Reuse majority of rules: The Robot Rules are, for the most part, reused from one year to the next. There might be a couple game-specific rules, and rules are updated as needed, but it's very recognizable as the same rules. Even in the game rules, you'll see very similar/identical rules reoccurring over the years. Pinning, for example, or grappling with field elements, or hitting someone inside their frame perimeter.

Prevent the reuse of strategy: That's what a whole new game is for!



Anyways, I could see them reuse old games with small tweaks. I heard that their "backup game" for Rebound Rumble was basically Aim High. The point of doing a repeat would be to make sure that the year's being repeated have enough differences (control system, allowed motors, etc) to make it a truly new engineering challenge. Imagine playing a game from the mid 90's now - the control systems are much, much more advanced, we have orders of magnitude more motors available, COTS gearboxes that weren't even in people's dream's back then... I think you would see the robots and the games play out very differently!

Re: What if...
 

254 copies... 254 copies everywhere

Re: What if...
 

And said game is either #1 or #2 on the list of games you don't bring up. It depends on whether the person(s) bringing it up actually played it or watched it (#1) or not (#2).

2001: Diabolical Dynamics. 4v0. The faster you finished, the more points you got (multipliers...) And the reason that the Estop rule now notes that the Estop doesn't affect match timing at ALL.

Re: What if...
 

That was not an overwhelming success the first time.

Re: What if...
 

That would be super cool. If you made the pyramids with 2 levels in place of 3, then it could be possible to shoot a 24" ball through it (or at aleast bass through it without getting stuck).

OC, keep in mind they design the games I think 3 years in advance. Plus, reusing a game would be way too "cheap" for the victors of this year. They could just reuse their old bots (1114 would be doing it for the 3rd time). I highly doubt they will be reusing this game for a long time, if at all.

I loved this game though. Teamwork was an aspect I liked quite a bit.

Re: What if...
 

So what's the alternate #1/#2, Lunacy? Hard to disagree, really... I thought 2011 was pretty bad and everything I can find about 1993 (not much) looks pretty boring, but Lunacy was something else.

I certainly don't see them doing it for 2001's game, but I seem to recall hearing multiple times from GDC members that they have considered reusing, in part or in full, former games. Maybe not the immediate year after, though, that would be a pretty big shock to rookie/returning teams... Maybe 5-6 years later, updated with new bumper rules and so on? I've always wanted to see what something like Stack Attack would look like with some "protected zones" (maybe the one game where they would really help a lot...)

Re: What if...
 

If Aerial Assist was replayed, I would quit.

Frank talked about GDC "improvements". Aerial Assist was a mediocre game that was preceded by two awesome games, and one very good one. If the GDC decides to draw inspiration from a previous game, why not use a more popular game?

Re: What if...
 

Why do you dislike it? It was something totally new and awesome in terms of coopertition.

Re: What if...
 

What about levels? I never see anyone on hear mention different levels in the playing field.

i envision a three level field with balls entering the field on the top tier. One alliance member needs to push the game piece to a hole where it falls to the second tier. Another alliance member pushes the game piece to a hole where it falls to the bottom level. The third team member scores the ball.

Obviously, this is just a crazy idea that I haven't spent much time thinking about. But while we're throwing crazy ideas out there, does anyone think different levels could be in our future any time soon?

Re: What if...
 

Well, last year was 1114 copies everywhere. Copies gonna copy.

Re: What if...
 

I don't know about you guys, but after a season of FRC, I am burned out. After spending so many hours working on that robot and thinking about that game, having to go back to something even similar would just feel awful.

I was there, we did that. I think you need the competition to be refreshed every year to make all the time worthwhile, I know I need it to be.

Re: What if...
 

Aerial Assist Coopertition is when teams on opposing alliances cooperate to score. As played in the kickoff video and at the championships, perhaps there were new levels of cooperation in AA. However, at our regional, and the others I saw on video, most alliances wound up consisting of one robot playing offense and two on defense. Alliances with two good offensive robots would put two on offense and one on defense to get the truss and assist points. I don't recall anyone at our regional successfully using a 3-assist strategy.

As long as a working drive system can mount a defense, defense and playing against defense will be a major factors in the game, at least at the regionals. This is why Rebound Rumble was the most recent game in which offenses were largely unbothered by defense.