The whole concept of last year and the sports mentioned is the assist

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

Two Options:
Option 1) Since FLL is focusing on recycling too next year it has to either be Lego themed, or Entirely built of LEGOs

Option 2) Recycling is good for the earth, and the earth is mostly water, so it has to be a water game!

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

With all of this talk about hockey I was questioning what they replace the carpet with, but then I realized that to play hockey, it doesn't have to be a puck. They could keep the same carpet and use small foam balls, which could be manipulated outside of the frame perimeter?

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

It's also possible that they keep the carpet, but do something to make robots a little more 'slippery' on the field...mandatory Omni wheels or something like that. I'm not saying I like the idea (I happen to dislike it), but if the GDC wanted to make the game a little icier, it's possible. As far as game pieces go, I think a hockey game would be more likely to have lacrosse balls or something similar - they're a lot more durable.

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

Well if the game was indeed a rendition of Hockey I would like to see FIRST reuse the regolith surface from 2009 Lunacy.

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

No you wouldn't. No way. You weren't around, so I'll just tell you the characteristics (or rather, where to find a piece so you can figure it out).

1) slick, with FRC wheels.
2) Degraded over time (so the floor could get stickier through the event)
3) Became a Van de Graff generator of fried electronics
4) Difficult to transport
5) robots slid all over the place
6) Can be found in many a public restroom: on the walls

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

Yet hockey isn't hockey without ice or something similar. Lunacy was exciting to watch due the large variable of the field. In the past it challenged every team not just rookies. Personally I would like to see a game that is so different from the past games that it sets a high bar for the games to come. Because "Change is coming."

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

The ISBHF would like to have word with you.

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

IMO a game with lacrosse balls would be very unsafe for spectators and volunteers unless there were extensive restrictions to keep them on the ground or we bring back the big nets from 2013. Anyway, FRC has never used a game piece that small, unless you count Maize Craze, so I don't see it happening.

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

No any of the wheels normally used in FRC would have reasonable traction on that surface, the requirement was to use hard plastic wheels specifically to prevent good traction.

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

But if FIRST gets its hands on this stuff it's all over, but I'm betting its too expensive

http://ktoe.com/common/page.php?id=3151&is_corp=1

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

"Change is coming."
Change.
Ultimate Ascent will be replayed with different sized frisbees painted like coins.

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

In 1999, the NFL allowed instant replay for coaches to be able to question the call,here this could be a possiblity, but I doubt it because the question box is already full, imagine the nightmare of rewatching every match for simple calls? But if the penalty affected the game outcome they could use instant replay?

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

Google "Change is coming" and find a song "A Change Is Gonna Come" by Sam Cooke. The first line of that song is "I was born by a river." Water Game Confirmed.

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

Just my opinion, but I feel the '97/'99 mixup was not on purpose nor does it have any significance. Frank responded "Whoops." which makes me think it was actually an accident - I don't think they would acknowledge the key hint in the video while it might not've been so obvious? Then again he could be helping out and pointing out that that was what we shoud've been looking for.

The other day I was thinking about how the NFL has instant replay, the MLB recently began implementing it, and the NHL is beginning to consider using it as well. I have always seen one of FRC's ultimate goals as being as big a spectator sport as any of the traditional ones, and I'm sure they've talked about implementing things like instant replay. But in football, the one thing you can't challenge is a penalty, even when they can have a big impact on the game. Obviously FRC doesn't have to have the same rules for challenging, but other than penalties, scoring is the other big thing you would challenge, but other than arguing whether a team got an assist or not, I can't think of anything in recent years that's truly questionable. A ball is either in a goal or not, and endgame results are already assessed carefully because they can walk on the field to look at the robots closely.

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

Actually, we had an essentially square kitbot at our regional who managed several low goals and (herding) assists in 2014. The only thing "added to the chassis" not in the KOP were the mandatory bumpers. It also had a plywood cover flush with the top of the bumpers to protect the electronics, but it didn't help push the ball.

The last two years have had several scoring opportunities for a drive system with some totally static "manipulators", and defensive opportunities by simply getting in the way. As I recall, in 2012, something else had to move for you to influence the score - you couldn't get on a bridge without pushing it down outside your bumpers, and you couldn't pick up a ball either. You couldn't defend, since you couldn't get over the hump. I doubt that you could even drop a "startup" ball in a low goal without something moving.

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

At first I thought the demonstration sheet was the entire ice rink. Fortunately not. I wonder how durable that material is.

It was possible to drive over the hump using 8" wheels.

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

As I recall you could drive under the hump, too.

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

That was 2010. :)

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

I feel like the hand model from Zoolander here. I just explained this, a moment ago. There's nothing all that 'slippery' about ice skating. If wheels weren't a close approximation of skates in the first place, roller skates wouldn't be a thing.

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

If you take the hint "Change is Coming!" as a play on words for "Winter is Coming" (Game of Thrones), and the 60 in long, 3X3 box in the kit of parts, could it be a lance for jousting.

Have robot to robot interaction instead of each alliance attempting to score a goal.

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

Wait what? The NHL has been using instant replay since 1991.

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

The war room in Toronto would like to have a word with you...

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

While I am not under the belief that hockey pucks are in our near future, I am willing to agree with the following logic that was proposed to me:

The Mystery Box in the KOP: 3" x 3" x 60", 6lbs

Proposal: Pucks in a long cylindrical tube (minimal weight increase and space reduction)

Individual Puck Size: 2.875" Diameter, 1.25' Thick, Weight 2oz

45 of these pucks would come out to 5.625 lbs and 56.25" when stacked. That would certainly fit the extents and leave a little room and weight for packaging...

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

There's probably going to be some new HUGE change this year, I highly doubt a water game, a lot of people don't have access to pools and there's not enough stands. However, that's the only huge change I can see coming? :confused:

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

Well, this begs the question: Would you consider all the changes in the hint video "huge"? I wouldn't expect this change to be any bigger than those. Things change every year, it's just a matter of which ones our perception tells us are the most major.

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

I'm not so sure. When has the hint been focused on change happening? They (FIRST) seems to be very clear that SOMETHING we have all grown used to is changing.

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

So I checked out page 2 of the 2014 manual that was flipped to in the game hint. At the bottom of the manual is a "Arial Assist is played by two competing alliances" line as is underlined in red in the attachment 'manual.png.' Note that this is page 2/3 of the Game summary. There are 2 alliances in past years, but this year we are recycling. We have 2/3 but let's make it 3/3 by "Going green." Notice how the recycling symbol in the game hint video on the bin is white, also a triangle of course. How about adding a third alliance that is White? This would triangulate the entire way that districts, regionals, worlds, etc. are run... and well... finish off the colors of the first logo.

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

Everyone can agree that a 3" x 3" x 60" box is unwieldy, and since FIRST is giving them out (and they have no motivation to make our life unnecessarily hard, I mean, they exist for us student's benefit), I think we can be quite certain that the objects in that box must be in a box of that size for length purposes. That would mean most likely no hockey pucks, and besides, it even looks like they ship from suppliers in much more reasonably sized boxes anyway. I would guess other suppliers would follow suit, I mean, its probably more expensive for shipping companies to handle boxes like that too.


Anyway, I just wanted to put out my thoughts on a few criteria that the GDC uses to create their games (recently):

• The games have to be spectator friendly. One of the main goals of the entire FIRST organization is to expand its reach, to spread STEM to more schools and therefore educate the world's youth about the STEM fields. Many people will have their first exposure to FIRST by attending events as a spectator (or watching online, doesn't really matter), and if someone doesn't understand what's going on or finds it boring, they aren't very likely to peruse i, to create a team. This goal is much bigger than simply "changing things up" for a new game. A corollary of this is that the match will most likely be head to head (i.e. not 4v0, 6v0) because, well, head to head matches are really exciting and just "score as much as possible" in real time is, well, boring for people who aren't way into it like we are. Another would be that it has to be pretty simple on the surface.

• All teams must be able to field a robot that can contribute to an alliance, even boxes on wheels. Just as FIRST wants to have more teams join, they want to retain their new ones. If rookies are able to be good contributes to their alliances even with their likely limited resources, I would guess that they would be more inclined to continue in the competition, even recommend that other schools join.

• The game has to be safe. This means no small hard projectiles. Lacrosse balls are undoubtedly out (I used to play before I sold my soul to Dean and trust me it hurts). Real hockey pucks are most likely out too, even if they tried to limit them to only ground shooting (a la 2010), since one will go flying somehow. There are other alternatives, so I just don't see why it would be worth it.

These criteria along with the pretty explicit AndyMark field hint lead me to believe that 3v3 will be staying. I would also guess that the primary surface for the field will be the same too (or at least not be one that leads to lunacy play).

As for the hint, I generally don't like to look to far into them since, well, you never have really had to (well, 2013 was pretty tough, but anyway). Frank is is recycling the 2014 manual while standing on what looks like a standard field and tells us that "Change is coming". Assuming that he is referring to the manual, I would guess that there will be a major restructuring of the rules, like penalties, or the way teams are ranked and put into eliminations. Things in the Administrative manual have changed in accordance with this too, like Elimination matches now being referred to as Playoff matches.

Honestly I doubt the hint has anything to do with the actual game pieces or the play of the game itself, its just telling us that there will be a major change in the way we go about competing.

I can't even imagine how much fun watching this thread as the GDC is.

Could simply be a new vendor supporting first. Perhaps aluminum of various lengths and types ?

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

Anyone mention the encrypted version of the manual is nonexistent. I believe it is usually posted by now. Does that appears to be because they are going to an online viewer version instead? That's a change.

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

I have spent the last four hours reading through all of the discussion on this thread, and found that while most ideas are plausible, some are more so than others. Post #411 was especially helpful, although it received very little attention on this thread.

My thoughts on the ideas that have come throughout the thread:
1) Autonomous being moved to the end of the match: Although this idea does propose a unique challenge both to the drive team and to the programming team, I don't think FIRST will take this direction for a couple of reasons (although, who knows, Frank did say that "Change is Coming"). My initial concern here is safety. Having robots start auto at the end of a match means that autonomous could begin in any multitude of positions for however many robots are on the field. Knowing how finicky robots can be, even being slightly off in the position that a team reaches can lead to drastically different results in the autonomous period. Having robot on robot interaction during autonomous then, is a huge possibility. FIRST has, for safety reasons, tried to minimize this by making rules about not crossing over the middle of the field during Auto. Although FIRST is making big changes this year, I don't think making events less safe is on their list of priority changes. Not only this, but it would be very difficult to regulate the transition between Teleop and Autonomous. As it stands now, players stand behind a line and wait for auto to be over to step forward, making it clear that the robots are acting without driver controls. If auto were at the end however, many people would find themselves in the heat of the moment trying to hang on to the controls for as long as possible. Even if a large penalty were assigned to teams that didn't step back in time for auto (which seems only to promote the foul based victories that we saw in 2014, albeit not at the highest levels of play), many events would have difficulty regulating this transition. The multitude of positions also brings up my second concern. Autonomous programming being as difficult as it is for most (or many, however you say it without offending anyone) teams, it would feel very unsatisfying to have made a great Auto code and line up your robot in the right spot at the end of the match, only to see it not work 90% of the time because another robot sat themselves in your way. Lastly, this auto at the end seems very anti-climatic (as was mentioned previously, sorry I forgot who mentioned it). Only the most competitive of robots would do anything useful during this autonomous period, but even then other robots can get in the way (since auto does the same thing every time, it would be easy to set up and block). This leads to an end game where all or most of the robots are sitting on the field, not scoring, not moving, or anything. How boring.
2) 6v0 or other v0 format: I really caught on to this idea, considering the name change of "Elimination Matches" to "Playoffs" Teams compete in a time limit to earn as many points as possible. These points go towards ranking in qualifications, you pick a permanent alliance for "Playoffs" then each permanent alliance goes 2 or 3 times, you take the sum of their scores, and the highest one wins. No "elimination", because there is no bracket.
3) Hockey or Puck related game: This idea also seems plausible, and could fit in with the v0 or a XvsX(vsX, etc. if you'd like, although anything more than two alliances seems unlikely due to the "Enemy of my enemy is my friend" game-play that results from such formatting) format. I can definitely see the 3"x3"x60" object containing some number of pucks, considering how well the math works with the weight(as worked out previously in the thread). As to how to play such a game, knowing that a hockey puck is the scoring object means nothing. Manipulators are highly dependent on what rules they must abide by in the manual, which we will just have to see on January 3rd, 2015.
4) Recycling 2014's Game: This one upsets me. As much as I liked 2014's game, I do not think it would be interesting for spectators to see the same game being played by basically the same robots. Recycle does not mean repeat.
5) Switchup of Video Footage, no '99 game, 2x '97 game: I saw a summary that said the thread believes that the switch-up was intentional, and that FIRST was incapable of making such a big mistake on accident. Does no one remember last years hint, when they literally released the wrong numbers, giving the birthday for the soccer player who DIDN'T actually hold the top number of assists? That seems like a pretty big mistake to me. This mistake is not huge, its just an editing error by someone who was rushed to put together a hint and accidentally clicked on the wrong file, chose a random spot to include, and didn't recognize that the game was not from '99 because they weren't around in FIRST during the '99 or '97 games. (kudos to everyone that has pointed this out before).

I'm not sure what the game hint means, but I think there are definitely great ideas out there. Although we have to wait until January 3rd to know for sure, nothing says that we can't have fun while we wait. Keep speculating!

TL,DR - Autonomous shouldn't switch to end because of safety concerns. Different alliance format likely, but not more than 2 alliances. Hockey Game is a good idea. 2014 game reuse isn't. Footage switch was not intentional. Have fun speculating while waiting for January 3rd.

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

Last year, the encrypted manual wasn't posted until the Thursday before kickoff. There's still time.

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

Anyone else considering a forced role game. That being a siege style game or attack defense. Think most video games call it assault or whatever where you take turns defending an objective or pushing it. The popular one that comes to mind is CS:GO or counter strike where you have one team trying to stop a bomb from being planted and the other team trying to plant it. The concept we steal from here is that you have red alliance and blue alliance and one alliance is forced to play defensively and one side is forced to play offense. Going in line with "Kit bots can contribute" just having a body blocker on offense or defense is viable, and current field constraints work. I'd like to believe that some game in the future or even this coming game is done in an assault style.
Also wouldn't FIRST be shooting a few companies in the foot by going Lunacy and forcing certain design choices like wheels?

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

Blog post about last year's hint for reference: http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprogr...ame-Hint-Redux

Recall that last year, when they made a mistake that wasn't even a complete mistake as they admitted, Frank wrote a whole new blog post and re-released the hint fixed to avoid confusion or possible misdirection, and even said that "So maybe we should have spent a little more time on this one! Sorry about that." If they truly did just accidentally click on the wrong video clip, I would have expected more of a response like last year's, rather than a nonchalant "Whoops".

Also, I highly doubt they picked they videos and set it to automatically pick a random spot in the video. They specifically chose, even if they didn't spend much time on it, clips from the video that had a bit of action. I could see this being a mistake far more if the two clips were the same, but considering they are from two completely different spots in the same video, I just can't envision any process of editing this video that would result in this as an accident.

Now whether this switcheroo was accidental or not, I don't think it'll provide a whole lot of insight into the game. So while I don't think we should look too far into this part of the hint, I would have to respectfully disagree that this was not intentional.

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

The RR KOP wheels were 6", so you would have had to buy another set (and boy, were we strapped for cash our rookie year). Even with 8" wheels, that would be a trick. The hump was 4" high, so an 8" wheel would hit it with a vertical surface. I wouldn't try to drive over it with a wheel anywhere near the carpet unless it was at least 12" in diameter. At 8", the bumper would also have had to be located fully above the axles, which really isn't a normal thing if you're building the KOP chassis. The only robots I saw "drive over" the hump had some sort of articulated chassis which raised the "front" wheels at least two inches off the floor (or possibly they were accelerating so fast that they were rolling only on the rear wheels, which seems even less likely). All in all, this goes past a kit bot with some static pieces added on top

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

Haven't heard this idea mentioned, but if they really want to change things up... no wheels. Never been done ASFAIK in FRC.

Forget Water Game... Walking Game. :) Would certainly level the playing field a bit. Anyone ever had a walking bot?

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

Well, never that I know of, but when has the hint ever been similar to a previous year's? They're always pretty different. If they gave this hint before the release of Ultimate Ascent and then we found out that the robot sizing rules were changing, I would have been pretty well satisfied. I think that would have been enough because it was such a mainstay over the previous several years, but it didn't fundamentally change the way we approached that game or Aerial Assist. I think this year will see something of that magnitude again--not really earth-shattering, but something that hasn't changed in a while.

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

Well, yes. Team 71 did it in 2002 (they're the robot coming in from the left), and that robot became one of the most famous in FRC history.

And, in addition to leveling the playing field, it could also rip it up, literally. With the huge requirement on traction that year, many teams (especially 71) ended up tearing the carpet pretty badly. FIRST changed the rules on what could be used for traction devices the following year.

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

Has anyone else noticed they used 97 footage for the 99 game? Seem people think it was just a fluke...but I doubt they put a lot of time into what the game hint will be, only to mess up the footage they put in. That was the year they added alliances too--so I think the change is going to be in the alliances. Perhaps making it 4 robots to an alliance or having 3 alliances per match.

I also don't think the triangle is the most significant thing in the video, and so it won't be a huge factor in this coming game

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

I know there are over 500 posts in this thread, but yes, we've all noticed that and been over it many times. People (particularly the more veteran members of the forum) will appreciate it more if you are aware of this. You can use the "Search this Thread" box at the bottom of the page to help check if certain topics have been brought up already.

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

FRC 276 Madcow from Youngstown, Ohio, built walking robots back in the day. I recall seeing some discussion about a patent application they filed. I also recall competing against them at the 2004 St. Louis Regional. I had the pleasure of escorting Dean Kamen around the pits and arena that year, and vividly recall the keen interest he showed in the 276 machine while watching matches at field-side. Their robot could not score balls, cap, or move fast, but its drivetrain was unstoppable and it could hang. I think the team had just one mentor and three students that year.

Anyway, walking robots have been done, some more successfully than others.

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

Earlier in the thread, I am not sure who said it, someone mentioned something about multiple game pieces. There is also a lot of speculation as to the GDC editing our alliance system as well.
Jacob Bendicksen, the Co-President from 1540, and I were thinking about these ideas, the hint, and the other tidbits we know.
We came up with a possible idea for the game.

The video references that "Change is Coming". One thing that has never happened (I have done my research) is multiple game piece types. By this, I mean having in one game for example an inner tube and a frisbee as the primary game pieces. We envisioned a game where there were multiple game pieces that were changed out during the match at set intervals. Then the leftover game pieces from the previous interval would just become dead game pieces.

Where do these game pieces come from? That was when we looked to the "recycling bin" ideas. We were thinking they would recycle game pieces from the past in this game.

Then we thought of the problem during qualification matches "So the game switches game pieces every XX seconds, but my alliance can only manipulate one of them". To decrease the chance of that happening, we thought they should add a fourth alliance member.

But this fourth bot would be a robot that can "line change" in and out with other teammates. Like in hockey, this would mean alliances could quickly switch out their "bench" team into play depending on the game piece in play. Thus, at one time, there would only be three robots on the field at once.

Then, we thought that there would be a problem. At district events, we can't have 32 teams in eliminations. That would be too much.

So we thought, if they reduced it to 6 team playoffs, we could keep the 4 team alliances, keep the same 24 teams in eliminations, and the bracket could still work. First and Second teams would get a bye (Like in football playoffs, the best teams get a bye) and would play the winner of 3v5 and 4v6, respectively.

We want to know what you all think.

TL;DR Multiple Game pieces. Recycled Game Pieces from Past Games. 4th "Benched" Team in Alliances. 6 Alliance Playoffs with 1st and 2nd Seed having a Bye.

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

I've been thinking of a few different areas that could be sources of big change, and I have to say the one 'genre' that I really don't like is changing the 3v3 structure. I like having a selected backup robot in elims (at bigger-than-district events), but otherwise don't want to see change there.

A few potential areas of "big change" that I do think could/would actually be good:

- Reducing weight limit to 100lbs or 90lbs. Robots have only been getting heavier over FRC history, with the early increase to 120lbs, then the addition of a separate bumper weight (and the growth of this allocation up to 20lbs), but the perimeter change has brought the area down these past two years. Additionally the presence of bumpers, COTS components, and better motors have enabled teams to build lighter. Bringing the weight limit down noticeably would reduce the 'm' aspect of robots' kinetic energy, push teams towards fewer motors on the drive (by reducing the weight budget those extra CIMs are more costly and also less necessary since less torque can be applied to the weels), and make teams evaluate which assemblies/mechanisms are really worth including (seems to me like recent rookie teams rarely come close to the 120lb limit).

- Dramatically reducing # of rules. Obvious, but highly unlikely given the GDCs recent trends.

- Multiple game pieces. I like this one a lot... could become very interesting and would force teams to either specialize or do some incredible engineering to combine.

- Moving autonomous to the end (or having a beginning and ending mode). The more I think about this the neater it would be... teams would have to prepare for the autonomous mode during the match and reserve time to place themselves carefully or use exceptional autonomous capabilities to ensure a successful final auto mode. It would be kind of like an end-game of itself...

- A dramatic change to the 'T' section of the manual such as how ranking is done or enabling a form of instant replay.

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

I was going to respond earlier to this, but things happened.

So...
This isn't going to happen, not in the near future at least. It's been discussed before, but the upshot is that nobody's yet been able to implement a system where the money cost is low, the "extra time" cost is low, AND the "refs don't wanna do this anymore" cost is low. Actually, getting past the first one is hard enough.

And here's one example of why.

There was a match at L.A. that had one alliance in the question box for three straight matches (the refs would break off to run the matches, then come back to the box) trying to figure out why they didn't get points that they thought they should have gotten. Now, I can't find video of that match on TBA, and can't remember what teams were in that match--just that one of the teams on that alliance had appeared, to the team in the box, to have fully crossed into a zone with a ball and thus gotten an assist. Just to refresh our collective memory, the robots had to be contacting the ground entirely within the zone to get the possession in the zone. Also, there were three refs looking primarily at that robot--one scoring ref, one spotter for the scoring ref (me, in this case), and one ref diagonally from the scoring and spotter who had a better view. Oh, and if I recall correctly, the final score was such that the assist would not have made a difference.

The result of that discussion was that the team did not get the assist points. Why? Because 3 refs, looking at that robot, did not see the robot contacting the ground entirely within the zone on that particular cycle. So, either it did not qualify for the possession in the zone, OR a ref standing about 15 feet away and looking right at it missed seeing it AND 2 refs at about 30 feet away looking right at it missed it. (Or couldn't remember when asked a couple matches later--pick your choice of the three options.)

Now, how does that example play into why getting past those obstacles is hard? Consider this: The camera(s) for any instant replay will almost certainly be farther away than the refs' eyes, and due to arena considerations, probably higher up. They will need to be looking at the area in question. And they will need to be able to show--clearly--whether a robot is contacting the floor in a given area, from what will probably be a worse angle. That means a really good camera set, and trained operators--no closeups of flipped robots, no moving the camera(s) to random locations, sharp focus on key areas... Guess what, that means extra money to rig the cameras and make sure they're operating "properly".

I could go on, but I'll keep it short: I haven't gone into the logistics of calling for a review, getting the video to point X for review by ref Y, and keeping the time down. Nobody's really figured out much of an actionable plan for those. Until someone figures out all those logistical items in a way that makes sense, instant replay will be good only for match highlights.

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

Agree with everything here. Only thing is I don't see them reducing the weight limit for a couple reasons:

-First, I don't get the feeling that reduced weight would be a big change. You're still building a robot that will be more or less similar to the past few years' and playing the same format competitions. There are already light robots, so for those teams who regularly build very light, it won't be a big change.

-Second, very minor, I think FIRST likes having the press know we build some heavyweight robots compared to what some other smaller robotics programs are out there for high schools.

Though it's definitely not out of the question to change the weight, I just don't think that's the change referred to in the hint. Agree with all the other comments.

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

I took this picture at the Dallas Regional in 2014. I think you will find it relevant
(even though it was made by a team)

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

What about something like the shot clock in basketball? To my knowledge, both alliances have always had an equal opportunity to score points throughout the duration of the match. What if the game had alternating scoring periods so only one alliance could score at a time, alternating every thirty seconds or so. Something like this would make game play resemble the one game piece option that some people have discussed.

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

That is very close to how the 2006 game was structured.
It could happen again, though.
I enjoyed it - though it turned out that whoever had the last scoring period had a significant advantage that was difficult to overcome.
That year, whoever scored more points in autonomous got a bonus score and their opponents would start their scoring period first. Going first was a disadvantage for several reasons, the primary one being that there were much fewer balls lying on the field to score with.

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

What are all of the ideas that have been brought up for the long KOP box?

Light pole
Bumper fabric
Noodle
Hockey stick
Donated stock
Hockey pucks
Pieces to build a game element/goal

Anything else?

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

A bunch of Hockey Pucks

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

Pieces to build tetras/mobile goals/some other game element

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

No, no, no a thousand times no. Frank loves to troll CD however he is not going to authorize spending thousands of dollars just to troll CD and confuse people. What ever the collection of items that is 3x3x60 you can be assured that they are ~60" long and can not be folded or otherwise fit into a smaller dimension. Anything that does not fit on a standard 40" x 48" pallet that the collection of items is not under a total of 48" high, including the pallet will be more expensive to ship. That 60" long collection of items is also a pain for some people to transport home in their particular vehicle. So Frank is not going to authorize inconveniencing the majority of the FRC community just to mess with the minority that is on CD.

Tl/DR; The 3" x 3" x 60" collection of items could not be packed in something substantially less than 60" long.

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

The St. Louis Blues won their first Presidents' Cup in the 1999-2000 season.
This cup allows a single team with a highest record(by points not ratio W/L/T) during the season to be guaranteed home-ice advantage for every round of the Stanley Cup Playoffs they make it to.

Take it how you want.
-What if highest seed alliance can pick alliance color? etc.
-Perhaps this is a game where alliance color determines role?

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

Agreed.

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

Can you choose what still image is shown before a video is played? Don't know much about how youtube works (never posted a video on there) but if a still can be chosen then maybe something can be taken from the fact that stack attack is the image shown?

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

I like your thinking...:cool:

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

Unless you have a partnership with Youtube, you can't choose custom thumbnails (the image shown as the preview thingy).

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

Yes you can. There is an option to upload an image or to select between a few screen grabs that YouTube picks for you, when you click to edit a video that you uploaded. I'm not sure that is is available to all users but I know we can on the Spectrum3847 channel, so I assume FIRST can as well.

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

What were the game hints for Stack Attack in 2003? Anyone know.. A big change that year was Autonomous being introduced.

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

He seems to "recycle" the 2014 game manual. Perhaps they are recycling one aspect of the 2014 game such as the assist mechanics.

BC

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

Alright, at this point everyone should get the hint that any discussion of any sort of leaked information is going to be removed.

FIRST HQ will tell us information when they are ready and Kick Off is only 5 days away anyway. Chill out a bit, spend some quality time with your friends and family and ring in the new year. No need in making the moderators work harder to remove things.

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

Are you sure this is wise policy, though? If information has been leaked, then it's been leaked. There's no un-leaking it; those who have seen it can benefit and those who haven't can't - wouldn't the best form of "damage control" be to just put it out there so everyone is on equal footing?

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

I'm not making any policy, or agreeing with any policy. I'm just saying that if the post is going to be deleted, there is no reason to post it and make the moderators do more work. The moderators are good people and I'm sure they have better things to do with their time. We all agree to abide by FIRST's rules by being in their competition and one of their rules is the time line at which information is released. If they want to release the leaked information to everyone that is their decision but I don't believe that it's mine or anyone else's to make for them.

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

+1 agreed

Skateboarding
 

They said there would be CHANGE, so it could possibly be skateboarding...

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

I have to throw out some thoughts...

* The emphasis on "Change" with the recycling of the rule book suggests to me that there is going to be a structural change in the game.... Something fundamental to the structure.... FIRST does want to find ways to get more teams involved and give teams more games at each competition... The rectangular structure of the field being sold on AndyMark strongly suggests that we continue to have two teams, so.... Two teams of four robots? Slightly smaller robot dimensions so as to give eight robots more room to roam on the field?

* What about the game? If it is another game with balls... We haven't done anything with footballs, tennis balls or whiffle balls... I reject the idea of hockey pucks: they are too dangerous. We've shot a lot of things through holes/hoops/goals... Stacking? Perhaps in a tube like the FTC game? I don't see a direct copy happening.... Okay: whiffle balls put into holes at each end of the court, but the holes are small enough that throwing them from any distance would be unreasonable. Instead they have to be placed precisely? Some holes would be really high and small for lots of points. Others could be larger and low for fewer...

* There needs to be something in the middle of the field as an obstacle or structure... perhaps for additional points... A target for each team in the center... Points are given for all robots that finish the match inside the target? Of course it would be too small for more than a pair of robots to squeeze into comfortably... Perhaps a second "coopertition" target for which "competition" points are scored for both teams if robots from two teams are inside? (Similar to balancing robots in Rebound Rumble?)..... Oooh Here's a twist: the last 20 seconds (instead of first) of each match is the autonomous phase and robots can't enter the circle until teleop ends....

I am looking forward to Saturday..... I have robots on the brain already...

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

Have an end game auto mode still sounds so exciting to me. The only problem I see is when a rookie team doesn't use auto. or auto it not working so you just have a 20 sec sit still time at the end of a match.

But I think the pros of end game auto wayyyy outweigh the cons.

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

I never said that that picture was a real leak. I posted it to ask you guys if you knew anything about the legitimacy of it. It could very well have been photoshopped.

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

If someone purports to have a leak, and it does NOT say "Official Game Hint" and is NOT from FIRST, it is NOT a game hint.

Remember: Those who tell, don't know, and those who know, don't tell. The penalty for that latter? Lack of knowledge in future.

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

If your Youtube account is in good standing with copyrighted content claims, you can add custom thumbnails, make videos unlisted, and make videos longer than 15 minutes. I had to resolve this issue with my team's copyright claims in order to make the super long video of our whole season.

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

Let's bring in what we all thought was the game hint before into the discussion:
Those kit box sizes

One of the boxes is quite long, and given the previous "hint" I thought the game would involve some sort of swing (tennis, golf, hockey)

Given this, and the open pages about assists, I actually think I have a game that FIRST would create:


That long box contains a long pole/rod which is a baton. The object of the game is to carry the baton down the field. The more robots that are used, the more points that are given. The baton is then deposited at a goal at the end of the field, and a new cycle begins

:eek:

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

I believe Game Hints started in 2004...

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

Not quite... I believe the 2003 one (though it may have been unofficial) was some variation of the quadratic formula.

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

Sounds almost exactly like Aerial Assist. I highly doubt that FIRST would do another game so similar to the previous year's game.

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

smaller Hexagonal or odd-shaped field, no alliances, maybe 1 v 1 or FFA with multiple and it'll be an arm game with elements to be picked up and placed.

The deletion of the 1999 game (link below) and replacement of it with the 1997 game is definitely significant (recycling 1997). 1999 was the first year with alliances as mentioned in the video but it was also the first year with a regular rectangular shaped field (disregarding 1992 which was a raised square sandbox) and every field since has been a regular rectangular shape. I believe that alliances and the rectangular shaped field will both be done away with for the coming game. Also when the guy opens the game manual he flips to the first pages which described the field in the 2014 game manual. Finally, it will be similar but a variation on the 1997 game because the 1997 game is the one being recycled so it will be some sort of arm game.

1999 Game:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0CDop_IwW8

Link to FRC 2015 Game Hint:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAETANAiLw0

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

I had another idea for change. What if drivers on an alliance had to drive each other's robots? It would mean in addition to building a robust robot, you have to make it user friendly and idiot-proof so that strangers can drive it.

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

It couldn't really be an odd shaped field because last year's field was approved for this year, which means no big changes in field size/shape.

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

Frank posted a rule on the FRC blog:

R13: Software and Mechanical/Electrical designs created before kickoff are only permitted if the source files (conplete information sufficient to produce the design) are available publically prior to Kickoff.

Sounds like a hint about recycled designs? 😂

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

I think it is more of a reminder to teams to release any offseason designs they worked on if they want to be able to use them.

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

That rule has existed for quite some time now. As previously posted, some teams are already prototyping their robots and have been for months. All designs done in this fashion have to be shared publicly.

Although I hope I'm wrong, maybe this is the rule that will be a big change? It does pertain to recycling and the rule book was recycled. The original blog post about how change is coming basically said not to expect long standing rules that we take for granted to be back every year, maybe this rule is the one being changed? I don't think it should be, but who knows? Also, should we look into the fact that he misspelled complete as conplete?

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

2014 R13:
2015 R13:
It did change. Before

as stated, was a prohibited activity. Now it's legal as long as the designs are open sourced prior to Kickoff.

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

I think this is evidence that it hasn't changed, based on 2014's part D. It does point to streamlining the rule book, which I have speculated is much of the change already, but I think the intent is still the same.

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

Agreed, I think it more just a clarification on what needs to be made public. Pictures of cad designs don't cut it, the source files actually need released to the public if you plan on using them.

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

True. My stating that the rule has been standing for a while wasn't the best way to state it. It's not exactly a new rule, but a recycled one. Look at the rule for 2013.

"4.1.4.1 R16
ROBOT elements, including software, that are designed or created before Kickoff are not permitted, unless they are
publicly available prior to Kickoff."

Frank reminded us a couple months ago not to assume previous rules apply to this year's competition. That recommendation has been longstanding and is nothing new.

Another example. One year we can not use springs, the next year we can, and the following we can not.

"Everything changes and nothing stands still." -Heraclitus

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

So... is there no longer an exception for bumpers or the operator console? That could indicate that both are changing dramatically this year (so previous designs wouldn't be relevant). Bumper rules were one of the things called out in Frank's original "something is changing" blog post...

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

I think I cracked the code. Coca-Cola has gotten involved with FIRST and Dean's company, DEKA. There will be Coke machines at either end of the playing field. Your robot will have to insert "change" (get it?) in to the coin slot, make a selection and lift the chosen bottle/can out of the receptacle. Then you open the bottle or can & pour it's contents into a reservoir on your robot. (Side note: if the machines only serve bottled water, there's your long-anticipated water game). Then the bots place the empty bottle/can in the RECYCLE BIN! An added benefit is the exhausted drive team can drink the contents of the reservoir at the end of the match.

You're welcome.

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

I highly doubt that Mr.Kamen would allow something like that. DEKA has always been neutral in FIRST and has never had projects that influence the game. The GDC (Game Design Committee) would not take a DEKA project and involve it in the game due to not having sufficient knowledge as they are two separate entities and Mr.Kamen would highly oppose it.

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

CokeMachineBot is disappointed.

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

So, I'll admit to not having read the entirety of this thread, but on the subject of triangles, and more specifically, deltas, there is apparently a type of robot referred to as a "Delta Bot" that is often used to move materials in industry (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_robot I may have misinterpreted the entry, but it's still a better lead than 'water game!' ;-) ) Maybe instead of game pieces going directly from the human players to the robot, there will be a delta bot transferring them?

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

In the past, hints have led us to the name of the game and little more. My guess for the name of the game is "Change of Pace", and what the game entails, who knows. But, the most outrageous change I can think of going forward is this........... Dean Kamen appears at Kickoff.......wait for it...........sans denim! :ahh:

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

The game manual is only 65 pages this year, because when I go the the game manual link (on my iPhone at least) it says "0 of 65" for what page it is.

https://rps01.usfirst.org/frc/manual...-Encrypted.pdf

This is a substantial change compared to 93 pages in the 2014 manual. Could this be the change they are talking about?

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

I very much doubt it will happen (at least this year), especially considering the lack of any evidence to support it, but just in case, I'd like to officially lay claim to being the first to proposing a caution cone gamepeice (at least in this year's round of speculation; someone else may have done it in past years)!

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

This would be fun to work with:

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

Is someone else able to replicate this? I don't have an i-device to try it on and I can't seem to replicate it on any of my devices.
If the manual is really down to 65 pages, that's a great change. It will make the manual much less intimidating to read. Hopefully, we'll see a lot more people reading the manual this year.

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

Funny you mention that. 3 years ago at CMP, at one of Bill Miller's last Ask Bill meetings, he introduced some of the GDC, and one woman (I don't know her name, but it was her last year on the GDC) said (for all to hear) "we've developed a water (bottle*) game!". (She backed off the mic a little for the word "bottle"). The crowd gasped...
I can't remember where exactly, but Frank said the rules would be significantly shorter this year, much simplified. This was some months ago. Guess it's true! Thank goodness, almost 100 pages was too much.

And, as far as change goes, I am STILL afraid of it (see my post at the beginning of this thread).

Re: 2015 HINT DISCUSSION
 

I just tried it on my phone and can confirm - 65 pages.