Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

Maybe they will change the corny playdough action figures in the kickoff video. I am excited for January 3 but dread watching the corny video. How about a Hollywood production. It is 2015.

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

I think they stick with the simpler animation because they don't want to hire somebody outside of FIRST to do it. As far as I know, the people who make the animation are already FIRST volunteers or employees. I'm okay with that because it means that our registration fees go toward our events instead of toward an overview of the game video that doesn't provide official rules.

Personally, I'm impressed with the quality of the animation, especially when compared to some of the team animation submissions.

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

I think the primary purpose is that they represent a clear and visual way of quickly explaining the game and how it works. They do a great job of accomplishing that task. And honestly, the animation is pretty good, with a bit of humorous robots.

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

Lavery had a picture of Plowie with the circle and cross through it, so I wouldn't be surprised to see a different animation. That will make me sad though.

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

Where'd you see that?

I will be so sad if the game animation isn't Dave's typical awesomeness. Sure, the game animations are similar "Welcome to the 20xx FIRST robotics competition, and this year's game...., .... is played on a 27 by 54 foot field with alliances of three teams each operating their robots...", but that's why I love them.

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

2015 is the year Back to the Future 2 takes place. Maybe the change is that all drivers and human players have to wear self-tying shoelaceless shoes.

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

I want to make a point for all of the speculation going on here about some pretty far-fetched ideas of what this game could have in store for us.

Yes, I know "change is coming." But please keep recent history in mind.

I think, and I think most people would agree, that the last three games have been three of the most exciting, and--at times--most well-crafted games in FRC history (especially Rebound Rumble, my personal favorite). I know a lot of people get down on the rules that really bound up Aerial Assist and caused more penalties than any of us would have liked, but take that complaint for what it is--a minor element to a game that was, at its height, spectacular to say the least. Last year's Einstein matches absolutely represented the pinnacle of everything FIRST has been trying to reach in game design for 23 seasons. Spectator-friendliness has never been better, and I think that's reflected in the recent growth of the programs and the overall perceived happiness among the FIRST community.

It seems like the GDC has been working towards more sport-like games in recent years, dating back to perhaps Breakaway, and now I think they're really hitting their stride. It's two teams (who really have to work together, by the way) duking it out together on a rectangular field playing a game with a straightforward objective yet strategically complex composition that can provide the suspense and drama that even an armchair quarterback can appreciate. The GDC is refining its craft and getting to be pretty good.

Why on Earth, then, would they want to throw all that away and go to something radically different like three alliances or one alliance or anything else that would be, at least in my mind, a huge step backwards--a regression from what has gotten them here?

I think the hint is really, honestly as low-key as Frank tried to make it sound when he said
It's about reexamining and streamlining the rules, it's about a new element of the game that hasn't existed before, or it's about updating the match structure to accommodate one of the other two. But it won't be about FIRST deciding to jump out of their wheelhouse for something untested or previously ill-received instead.

TL;DR Now that the GDC has struck gold, don't expect them to leave for greener pastures any time soon.

Happy holidays

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

It was on Facebook--my dad showed me.

What my dad and I were thinking was that either Dozer was doing something he shouldn't have been (no background, so no way to tell) and got caught, OR Dozer will once again get beaned by X field element/game object/partner robot, OR both. That's a CLASSIC Dave hint.

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

Maybe the GDC has created a "bulldozing" foul? :confused:

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

I still think it's two game-pieces.....call me far-fetched if you want to....

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

Just FYI as this discussion continues, his name is officially Dozer. :)

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

Keeping my take on the hint at a very basic or low level...the height of the goal is approximately the same as the lip of a blue recycling bin...

Is their any reason it couldn't be 1v1v1v1v1v1 ?

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

See 1v1v1, and "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".

What'll realistically happen is that the top team will end up playing 1v5, or maybe it's 2v4 or 1v2 and 1v2, with no coordination at all.

I was thinking what if say there were 100 objects on the field, and 6 scoring bins. You each get a point for each object in your bin. It wouldn't make since to play d with the time lost and others scoring while you do it. Would it?