Re: PUSH to Simplify the Game for 2002 ***Attention FIRST ***
 

Posted by Michael Martus at 04/19/2001 4:48 PM EST


Coach on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central H.S. and Delphi Automotives Systems.


In Reply to: PUSH to Simplify the Game for 2002 ***Attention FIRST ***
Posted by Andy Baker on 04/19/2001 11:31 AM EST:



Bowling... did you say bowling. Maybe FIRST can finaly use the pins I see each year being unloaded. :)

A major point is that for the game to be worthy of media attention it must be simple, exciting and most of all easy to score. The fewer the rules the better.

If you cannot explain the game in 30 seconds a channel surfer will not stay and watch.

This I realize is a very difficuly task.

what game aspects to simplify
 

Posted by Ken Patton at 04/19/2001 7:14 PM EST


Engineer on team #65, The Huskie Brigade, from Pontiac Northern High School and GM Powertrain.


In Reply to: PUSH to Simplify the Game for 2002 ***Attention FIRST ***
Posted by Andy Baker on 04/19/2001 11:31 AM EST:



I totally agree! This year's game was a disaster from the casual spectator's viewpoint. It was not even worthwhile trying to explain it to anyone - after the first few minutes of explanation, they lost interest. You cannot watch the game by yourself and figure it out.

As an engineering challenge, it was great. The complex strategies and tasks and communication challenges were world class.

I think there are a number of things that should change. But I agree, the Prive Directive (I love it when Andy speaks French! :)) is on target, only I would clarify the objective of simplifying the game:

MAKE THE GAME SIMPLE FOR A CASUAL SPECTATOR TO UNDERSTAND - this does NOT mean make the game easy for a robot to play.

In football or basketball, you know the primary objective is to get the ball into the endzone or basket after watching for only a short time. There are many many subtleties, but the casual spectator quickly knows who is on offense, who is on defense, when someone scores, etc. FIRST has not had a game with clear objectives since 1998 (hmm what was the last year ESPN bothered to put on a show...).

Keep the tasks difficult - it part of the magic of engineering to get the team from "this is impossible" to "I know twelve ways to do that" and I think FIRST has done this well every year. But KEEP IT SIMPLE FOR OUR VIEWERS!

How about this for a mantra: "Dean, design the game as if your grandmother is going to watch it"

Ken

some of our best stuff yet!!
 

Posted by Anthony Lapp at 04/19/2001 7:59 PM EST


Engineer on team #221, MI Roboworks, from Michigan Technological University.


In Reply to: what game aspects to simplify
Posted by Ken Patton on 04/19/2001 7:14 PM EST:



I don't usually put up a lot of posts, but this thread has inspired me today! Andy, as usual has hit us with a hard, yet interesting question of how to improve on the dynamics of FIRST. Namely how to make it possible for a "casual audience" as Mr. patton stated, to understand the games clearly.
I'll admit that I wasn't a believer in this years game. I was disappointed that there wouldn't be any defense, and I knew that the game would be hard to understand. All of us in the FIRST world know how disheartening it can be when someone asks you "what is that thing?", and it takes you 10 minutes of explaining just to get a blank stare.
If we're taking an unofficial vote on what the game should be, or just how we can improve the experience overall, I'm saying make it simpler to understand and reintroduce defense.
Keep the tasks hard, and make us challenge our students, but give me a chance to build a robot that people can understand. I can only say...."no, it's not a battlebot about 10 times a day before I get tired of it." Hopefully someone out there is listening to us!!

Anthony
team 221

I'm telling you TIRES
 

Posted by Jason Leslie at 04/19/2001 10:30 PM EST


Alumni on team #157, Aztechs, from Assabet Valley RTHS (Class of 1998) and .


In Reply to: PUSH to Simplify the Game for 2002 ***Attention FIRST ***
Posted by Andy Baker on 04/19/2001 11:31 AM EST:



Yes CAR TIRES. there heavy, they roll, and they have a hole in the middle. It would be hard for a robot to pick up especially to a good hieght. there could be different points for different goals scored on (ie low, high, and even the bowling pins that are seen every year.

Jay

Re: I'm telling you TIRES
 

Posted by Wayne Cokeley at 04/20/2001 12:08 AM EST


Coach on team #25, Raider Robotix, from North Brunswick Twp. H.S. and Bristol-Myers Squibb.


In Reply to: I'm telling you TIRES
Posted by Jason Leslie on 04/19/2001 10:30 PM EST:



: Yes CAR TIRES. there heavy, they roll, and they have a hole in the middle. It would be hard for a robot to pick up especially to a good hieght. there could be different points for different goals scored on (ie low, high, and even the bowling pins that are seen every year.

: Jay


Been there- done that. Toroid Terror five years ago used inner tubes and a three tiered goal with various scoring positions. Now maybe Monster Truck Tires.....

Re: PUSH to Simplify the Game for 2002 ***Attention FIRST ***
 

Posted by Chris Orimoto at 04/19/2001 11:10 PM EST


Student on team #368, Kika Mana, from McKinley High School and Nasa Ames/Hawaiian Electric/Weinberg Foundation.


In Reply to: PUSH to Simplify the Game for 2002 ***Attention FIRST ***
Posted by Andy Baker on 04/19/2001 11:31 AM EST:



First of all, I think this thread is AWESOME...drawing varied responses and excellent opinions. I guess, with respect to the "PRIVE DIRECTIVE", here's my take on 2001:

I loved the challenge of the game this year. Although as a driver, I also got heightened pressure during rounds (ugh...manual-balancing), but it was still fun. The aspect of time was another daring addition to the game. Again...heavy pressure on driver, but wonderful to say the least. Simpler...no...that would take all the fun out. More attractive...yes...we NEED to get some television coverage.

In order to do this, we MAY have to return to a 2v2 game. In THAT CASE ONLY, the game could return to a simpler format. The addition of the defense dynamic into the game will provide complex enough situations that wouldn't call for complex scoring tactics.

If we DO stay in the 4-working-together format, then the difficult game is a necessity. Well, a simpler scoring system would help, making it easier to explain (especially over television). However, we need to have multiple possibilities for scoring tasks. That way, you see many variations in robot design. The only problem with this is: how do you simplify the scoring system and still have many different ways to score? I think that may be a big issue in designing the 2002 game.

Somehow, I think any more than 4 robots on the field would be hard to keep track of...especially for the audience, as well as the drivers. Basketball would be fun, in fact it would probably be an interesting sight to see. Another thought, I had the impression of using footballs as scoring tools this year at the slight mention of "endzone" during the Kick-off. Now, if you thought the "warped" Sport Fun balls were tough..imagine using oval-shaped footballs...

Anyway, I am anticipating another AWESOME challenge in 2002. See you all at the next regional (or *gasp* even nationals)!

Just my personal thoughts...

Chris, #368

some game suggestions to think over- and not sports related
 

Posted by Wayne Cokeley at 04/20/2001 12:37 AM EST


Coach on team #25, Raider Robotix, from North Brunswick Twp. H.S. and Bristol-Myers Squibb.


In Reply to: PUSH to Simplify the Game for 2002 ***Attention FIRST ***
Posted by Andy Baker on 04/19/2001 11:31 AM EST:



: Now is the time that we all need to give FIRST suggestions about what was good and bad with last year's game. I had a list of about 5-6 main issues that I wanted to discuss with you guys and gals, but I'm tearing it up and making the list only of 1 issue. This issue is so big that it overrides all of the other issue, in my opinion.

: Make the game media-friendly and spectator-friendly. Make the game easy to understand, so it will be played on TV.

: I am willing to deal with any other rule that makes things hard on teams (SPI limitations, not knowing who is in your match until 2 minutes before you start, 4 team alliances, etc.). Those things are trivial compared to the fact that the game simply has to be easy to understand.

: There are two main ways to make the game simple to understand:
: 1. Dumb-down the game and make the scoring simple and easy enough that a 6 year-old can understand it... possibly more like Robotica.
: 2. Make the game similar to a sports game that we all know. I think that basketball would be cool... a difficult challenge, and some complex rules (3 seconds, goal tending, etc.), but PEOPLE KNOW HOW TO PLAY THIS GAME. We wouldn't have to spend 10 minutes explaining how multipliers work. We can even go Bowling... I really don't care what the game is... it's just gotta be easy to understand.

: If the rest of you agree with me, maybe we should call this our "PRIVE DIRECTIVE" for the 2002 season: To make the game understandable for the mass media.

: Like I said, now is the time to voice your opinions... we gotta come together on this. If we continue to nit-pick over the little issues, then this BIG one will once again be passed over. We all should be willing to make some major sacrifices as long as we get this issue through to FIRST.

: A few of you have harped on this issue before, I am not the first.... but I'm asking for us to come together on this issue and really push FIRST to do this for 2002.

: So, whaddy think? Are you with me?

: Andy B.

How about these ideas for variety in the game. Remember- FIRST is supposed competition for pro sports- and probably won't imitate any of them.

Picture this-
1. 2 vs 2 teams- a pile of cinder blocks in the center of the field- obj: build a pedestal on your half of the field and get on top of it. Your neighbors, of course can try to take your blocks and knock yours down. The higher you can get your bot on the hill the better the multiplier. Two bots up means even more score.

2. field obstacles- I doubt if anybody will ever again leave "junk" on the floor for the robots to crawl through. Just too messy to clean up. No Water either because of the mess and electrical problems it would cause.
But how about 4x4 beams- maybe at weird angles or like spokes, or maybe a pit of pipes the robots would have to roll over
Ramps are good obstacles too- maybe one with a right angle at the very top of the hill where the robot could go off if it lost control.
How about a section of sewer pipe for the robot to crawl through where the driver couldn't see the machine to operate it.
How about a wall like this year where the robots are given plywood to make their own way over the obstacle.

Just a few ideas to put into the heads of the readers. Of course the game for this year is probably already set. I just hope they go back to the team vs team concept and stop the nice nice 4 helper game. I think we all learned to play nice this year. Enough lessons. Lets play.

WC

Did everyone have trouble explaining the game?
 

Posted by Kris Verdeyen at 04/20/2001 6:28 PM EST


Engineer on team #118, Robonauts, from CCISD and NASA - Johnson Space Center and Friends.


In Reply to: PUSH to Simplify the Game for 2002 ***Attention FIRST ***
Posted by Andy Baker on 04/19/2001 11:31 AM EST:



After about the tenth time explaining the game, I boiled it down to:

1. All four robots are on the same team.
2. Small balls are one point, big balls are 10
3. Robots in the endzone are ten points.
4. Each goal on the bridge mulitplies your score by two
5. There are time multipliers.

It takes longer to explain baseball. To read some of the posts here, the FIRST rulebook was like the tax code or something.