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

Posted by Andy Baker at 04/19/2001 11:31 AM EST


Engineer on team #45, TechnoKats, from Kokomo High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.



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.

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

Posted by Libby Ritchie at 04/19/2001 11:55 AM EST


Coach on team #393, Full Metal Jackets, from Morristown Jr/Sr High School and NASA/KIPT, Inc..


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 agree with you! Trying to explain this year's game is TERRIBLE! We do a lot of public speaking and it has been a nightmare. Even when we "water it down" people still look a little confused. It needs to be simple! (And, I still would like to push for the 2 on 2 games! I enjoyed having an offense/defense...but that's a whole other issue!)

We have sent FIRST our concerns already. This issue was mentioned as well.

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

Posted by jesse at 04/19/2001 12:01 PM EST


Webmaster on team #393, Full metal jackets, from MHS and nasa/kipt.


In Reply to: Re: PUSH to Simplify the Game for 2002 ***Attention FIRST ***
Posted by Libby Ritchie on 04/19/2001 11:55 AM EST:



I agree with the robotica thing it would make fundraising so much easier. the game should involve more obstiles at set point makers so the points are easy to figure so the viewers could keep track so they can feel the are apart of the action

Hard to explain? Yes...that's why they need to SEE it...
 

Posted by Nate Smith at 04/19/2001 11:22 PM EST


College Student on team #66, Frostbite, from Willow Run High School and GM Powertrain.


In Reply to: Re: PUSH to Simplify the Game for 2002 ***Attention FIRST ***
Posted by Libby Ritchie on 04/19/2001 11:55 AM EST:



I'll agree that the game was a little hard to explain(I had a drawing of the field that I used whenever I tried explaining it)...but one thing that I found was no matter how confused they were when I was explaining it to them, once they actually saw the game played, they could understand it...

Nate

Re: Hard to explain? Yes...that's why they need to SEE it...
 

Posted by Jessica Boucher at 04/20/2001 7:30 AM EST


Student on team #237, Sie-H2O-Bots, from Watertown High School and Eastern Awning Systems & The Siemon Company.


In Reply to: Hard to explain? Yes...that's why they need to SEE it...
Posted by Nate Smith on 04/19/2001 11:22 PM EST:



Thankfully since the field has been basically the same size for the past 3 years, we create a mock-up of the field out of balsa wood the weekend of Kickoff to show at our Kickoff Dinner.

If anyone wants the dimensions of it, its really good to use, since we've scaled it so that pingpong balls can be used as the small balls and tennis balls can be used as the large balls.

-Jessica B, #237, who realised at the Kickoff Dinner this year that we had forgotten to make a stretcher and ended up making one out of a styrofoam plate five minutes before the speech ;)

The game should explain itself
 

Posted by Chris Hibner at 04/20/2001 9:07 AM EST


Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.


In Reply to: Hard to explain? Yes...that's why they need to SEE it...
Posted by Nate Smith on 04/19/2001 11:22 PM EST:



TV networks don't want a game that you have to explain for 15 minutes to understand. If you walked into the competition this year without any prior explaination, you would never understand how the scoring works until someone explained it. The problem with this year's game is that it takes literally about 10 - 15 minutes of explaination before someone understands it. First of all, the TV networks aren't going to sped 10 minutes every episode explaining the game. That means that if you miss the first episode, you have no idea what is going on and you're never going to watch again. Even if they do spend 10 minutes explaining the game, if you don't watch right from the beginning of the show, you're not going to know what's going on and you're going to change the channel.

A good TV game would capture an audience as they flip through the channels. It should take less than a minute to explain and someone should be able to figure it out on their own with a few comments from the commentators. Take last year's game, for instance. You could figure out 95% of the game in one match if the announcers say, "there goes team 66 putting in a black ball for 5 points and a yellow ball for 1 as team 308 hangs from the bar for a very valuable 10 points." With that one sentence during the action, the audience knows over 95% of the game. The only real thing left out is 5 pts. for being on the ramp, but that would become clear when someone attempts it. With this years game, there are too many ways to score base points, and too many ways to multiply. Then you have to explain that the multipliers compound instead of add together. Not to mention that no one wants to do multiplication in their living room while watching TV. In the end, you've lost your audience before they've caught on. If you could guarantee that everyone would understand the game, it would work, but this really isn't going to happen.

A great example is found in sports: football. No one outside of the U.S. watches football. I'm a HUGE football fan so I talk about it with all of the people I meet from outside the U.S. The reason that everyone gives for not liking football is because they don't understand it and they can't follow it because it is too complicated. The only reason the U.S. understands football is because it has been around for 100 years. The FIRST game is around for 2 months.

If you want people to watch a FIRST game, they need to be able to figure it out for themselves with only a few comments from the announcers. They should be able to flip through the channels, land on the broadcast at 23 minutes past the hour during the 8th episode and know exactly what is going on before 25 minutes past the hour (in other words, you have the length of one commercial break on a different channel the catch interest). If not, the person will change the channel. That is what makes BattleBots so TV friendly - within a minute you can tell what the object is, so your interest is held.

Sure some people watch TV in a different manner than described here, but a good majority of viewers channel surf. TV networks these days realize this and try to gear their shows so that they hook the channel surfers on their show. If you don't have the quick hook, with few exceptions, you're dead.

-Chris

Re: Hard to explain? Yes...that's why they need to SEE it...
 

Posted by Ameya Agaskar at 04/20/2001 6:37 PM EST


Student on team #293, Bullbots, from Hopewell Valley Central High School and Janssen/Morehouse Engineering/Lucent/Worldwater/.


In Reply to: Hard to explain? Yes...that's why they need to SEE it...
Posted by Nate Smith on 04/19/2001 11:22 PM EST:



: I'll agree that the game was a little hard to explain(I had a drawing of the field that I used whenever I tried explaining it)...but one thing that I found was no matter how confused they were when I was explaining it to them, once they actually saw the game played, they could understand it...

I found that people generally understood what the robots wanted to do (i.e. small ball good, large ball better, one goal balanced even better, two goals balanced best of all, fast time good, robot not being able to get over ramp bad, robot falling over backwards with no way to right itself even worse, etc.)
However, the scoring was difficult to explain because of all of the multipliers. Also, they seemed confused when they realized that all of the robots were on the same team.

Re: Hard to explain? Yes...that's why they need to SEE it...
 

Posted by soap108 at 04/20/2001 9:39 PM EST


Engineer on team #108, SigmaC@T, from Dillard & Taravella HS and Motorola.


In Reply to: Hard to explain? Yes...that's why they need to SEE it...
Posted by Nate Smith on 04/19/2001 11:22 PM EST:



...not too hard to explain, but, yeah, video helps a LOT!

Many co-workers and managers stop by my office (which is well FIRST decorated) and ask how we did and what the bots had to do.

My first step is to pull up a quicktime of a high scoring match from Chicago or Einstein since they have the cool color-bar that shows time&multiplier. Also the high scores demonstrate most features of the scoring.

As the match plays I point out some of the features...
When the clock stops I explain the scoring and it isn't difficult at all.

Example:
10 points each for robots in endzone and for each bb on the goal, and looks like about 10 small ball in the goal for another 10 points.
10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60. 60 points.

Then there's multipliers...
Each goal balanced on bridge is x2.
Time left is in the x2.5 range.

You just watched a 60 x2 x2 x2.5, or 60 x10, a 600 point match.

Oh well,
KA - 108



: I'll agree that the game was a little hard to explain(I had a drawing of the field that I used whenever I tried explaining it)...but one thing that I found was no matter how confused they were when I was explaining it to them, once they actually saw the game played, they could understand it...

: Nate

PRIME DIRECTIVE
 

Posted by Andy Baker at 04/19/2001 12:03 PM EST


Engineer on team #45, TechnoKats, from Kokomo High School and Delphi Automotive 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:




: 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.

If I learned how to proofread my post, maybe I can get my point across better... I meant PRIME DIRECTIVE!

Andy B.

Television?
 

Posted by mTd at 04/19/2001 12:22 PM EST


Engineer from Univ of X.


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



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


When you say, played on TV, do you mean like a one-hour special, or an actual series. I doubt that in its current format FIRST will make it to television. It's already been passed over twice for Battlebots, and that awful show called Robotica.

For the most part, Battlebots contains "polished" robots. Practically all of them are excellent. FIRST on the other hand has many great robots, but the percentage is not as high. All the best robots are in the finals though.

In Battlebots they are competing for money. FIRST does not have this. While it may seem as though its not important, would "Who Wants to Be A Millionaire?" be exciting without money?

There are a lot of other reason that would keep FIRST off they year, but the most important is NO ONE WANTS TO WATCH 4 teams working together. Anyone seen junkyard wars? Another great show that is driven by competition. FIRST this year was not a competition. It was exactly what Dean didnt want it to be, a Science Fair displaying robots.

Re: Television?
 

Posted by Dan at 04/19/2001 12:32 PM EST


Other on team - from Carnegie Mellon sponsored by -.


In Reply to: Television?
Posted by mTd on 04/19/2001 12:22 PM EST:



>>

Bad analogy because this is exactly why some people watch NCAA sports (especially the lower divisions.) You know the kids aren't playing for money or endorsements. And, to be honest, Comedy Central has stressed that the Battlebots are seeking "The Giant Nut" (yes, I know, "sigh") and all its honor rather than the cash prize.
Dan

Re: Television?
 

Posted by Chris Hibner at 04/19/2001 1:39 PM EST


Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.


In Reply to: Television?
Posted by mTd on 04/19/2001 12:22 PM EST:



: For the most part, Battlebots contains "polished" robots. Practically all of them are excellent. FIRST on the other hand has many great robots, but the percentage is not as high. All the best robots are in the finals though.

I don't agree that the robots in Battlebots are that great. They're mostly just drivetrains with the occaisonal spinning saw blade. And the driving is terrible! Even the least capable of the robots in FIRST this year could throw a wedge around themselves and be a decent battlebot.

Besides, at nationals there were roughly 620 matches (550 qualifying and 70 finals). If you were to have a series of 1 hour shows, each show would probably contain about 10 matches along with interviews and stories. Each season of any show is 22 shows, which means 220 matches get shown. This means that 400 matches can be discarded if the action is boring or the robots aren't attractive enough or whatever. This doesn't even count the regionals, which would probably have some matches that would be broadcast.

In other words, there is more than enough matches to choose from so that the robots appear "polished" and the action is interesting.

The other thing that would be attractive to TV is that the stories behind the teams would be pretty good human-interest material.

As far as games go, I thought last year's game had good TV potential - there were no multipliers and only a few ways to score. The game was easy to learn and follow, yet the game was still interesting for the teams. It will be a good challenge for FIRST to see what they can do for next year.

I think that FIRST needs to develop the game early, and then try and market it to TV BEFORE the kickoff so that the TV crews will be at all of the events getting footage for the TV show. Having a game and expecting to get coverage after the fact usually doesn't work. The key is to market the GAME to the networks. They must feel that the game is interesting if they're going to show it.

-Chris

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

Posted by Joe Perrotto at 04/19/2001 12:36 PM EST


Engineer on team #365, Miracle Workerz, from Delaware Explorers and Dupont.


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



Sorry, but I will have to disagree with you on this one. As anyone on my team knows, I am not a big fan of this year's game but the complexity of scoring resulted in a great deal of interest by our students and parents. Not a meeting went by where I didn't have someone come up to me with a new analysis or strategy that we could use to win. This year's game excited much more interest in the strategy than last year's and I am for anything that gets our students motivated.
I couldn't care less whether it is TV friendly, the news shows are only going to show 30 seconds anyway. And as anyone who has seen Robotica knows, that is one of the most boring shows on TV, it gives robot competitions a bad name. Give me Junkyard Wars anytime.

If you want to change something, bring back the head-to-head competition.

Just my opinion,
Joe

Re. General Suggitions for Next Year
 

Posted by Kyle Fenton at 04/19/2001 2:03 PM EST


Student on team #121, Islanders, from Middletown High School and NUWC.


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



The game next year should be all customizable.
This is my suggestions for a next year's game

1. Make it either 2v2 or all 4 working together. If it is
2v2 than your main objective would be to will be to
rack up the balls and head to the center to a fight
for the big points for the main objecting in the
center. If I is all 4 working together, you would have
a chance at higher score but have a harder time
getting a score. It should be integrated so that if
one robot doesn't perform its task than it will hung
the other robots, causing the whole alliance to
loose major points. This will cause the game to be
more exciting and will satisfy everybody (meaning if
they want 2v2 or all 4).

2. The game field next year will probably be the
same as this years and last years. Rectangular
shape with diamond plate stations. With also the
main objective in the middle with balls or floppies
at the human station and at the other side of the
field.

3. The game next year should be on multiple
terrain. Adds the excitement for the game instead
of just all carpet. Instead of just carpet FIRST can
add maybe metal surfaces, grit tape surfaces, dirt,
and maybe some water.

4. Hire DJ's that actually plays a variety of music.
This year it must have been just like 4 songs
repeated over and over again.

5. Have more team pictures stations. Remember
when you take your picture for your team where it
says FIRST in the background. Add about 1 or two
more. I remember waiting there for about an hour
in the hot sun.

6. Have a little something extra, like a lining or
something, so the floors, in very heavy rain don't
flood the pit area or the competition. This year that
was really annoying and dangerous (with the
electronics and all).

7. If you have a media pass for the indoor field in
the nationals, make it so that you have like you got
a clear view for the field. This year the indoor
"media station" was just another place where you
could sit down. I mean we could have use those
"special chairs" that no one else was using. Only
Einstein really had a good place to take video
shots. Another thing, only be up in the media booth
if your team is out there, or ready to compete. This
eliminates the crowding factor by only having about
5 people (4 teams + the guy who is taping it for
FIRST).

8. Make Epcot gives us more of the parking lot so
we can add two more divisions than last year's.
The side of the parking lot that said they had for
their "real customers" were no more than 10 cars
scattered. Believe me they can give us more room.

9. Have a separate screen maybe on the tents
outside or something for the
1.) Chairman's Award 2.) Animation
This will give teams more and better access to see
the other team's hard work. If it is a Chairman's
Award Paper submission than FIRST can scan it in
and on a big screen might be readable.

9. Split up the judges to a specific division. This
will give a more equal and better responses for
awards.

11. Practice should be a little more exciting.
Because you are waiting and do nothing that whole
day. Maybe that’s when speakers will come in and
demonstrate something for us or something.


There is many things I hated about this year but I
will explain that another time.

P.S. I hope that more teams next year will give out
awards. Nothing big, but just something to give to
other teams that recognizes their effort in helping
you out. It is almost like a team award can almost
be as satisfy as a FIRST award because someone
looked at your team and recognized your effort.

Kevin for DJ! :^)
 

Posted by Kevin Sevcik at 04/19/2001 5:23 PM EST


College Student on team #57, Leopards, from BT Washington and the High School for Engineering Professions and Exxon, Kellog Brown & Root, Powell Electrical.


In Reply to: Re. General Suggitions for Next Year
Posted by Kyle Fenton on 04/19/2001 2:03 PM EST:



My mom tried to dragoon me into DJing the Lonestar regional. I beging off by saying I'm not a professional and don't hav equipment and stuff. I've been forced into doing the music for some smaller competitons, though, so I now have a fairly large selection of music. :^) Alright, so it's all in MP3s, so? it works... Anyways, on to some other points...

1. I swear that 2v2 or all together thing sounds MORE complicated. Of course, I don't mind complication. Personally, I don't think the scoring this year was all that complicated. It was just hard to do. I think complicated scoring systems are good because they encourage more thinking and creativity. I'd hate t show up at nationals and find out that everyone's robot is the same as mine. That'd be boring.

3. Varied surfaces would be difficult, I think. Dirt would be too hard to get consistent. Sand would be too hard on the motors and other moving parts. And as for water.. Enough teams have trouble just WIRING there robot, much less waterproofing it. I think there's one viable option. Little plastic pellets. One of our engineers says that's how they ship bulk plastic, and it's supposed to be cheap. The only problem with this is making sure all the teams can get enough to practice with...

6. You realize that the only options to keep water out of the pits are to raise the whole floor an inch or so, or move the pits to the high ground? barring that, you'd have to seal the entire bottom edge of the tent to the pavement and figre out how to keep water from coming in through the doors. Or you'd have to erect a barrier around the inside edge of the tent that's sealed to the pavement. Frankly, I think It'd be easier and more productive to quit fighting the forces of nature and hope we don't have another huge rain storm.

what about corn husks for a surface? (EOM)
 

Posted by Joe Ross at 04/19/2001 6:41 PM EST


College Student on team #330, Beach Bot, from Hope Chapel Academy and NASA/JPL , J&F Machine, and Raytheon.


In Reply to: Kevin for DJ! :^)
Posted by Kevin Sevcik on 04/19/2001 5:23 PM EST:



never heard of that before ;)

Did you say something sonny?....
 

Posted by Wayne Cokeley at 04/20/2001 12:50 AM EST


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


In Reply to: Re. General Suggitions for Next Year
Posted by Kyle Fenton on 04/19/2001 2:03 PM EST:



: The game next year should be all customizable.
: This is my suggestions for a next year's game

: 1. Make it either 2v2 or all 4 working together. If it is
: 2v2 than your main objective would be to will be to
: rack up the balls and head to the center to a fight
: for the big points for the main objecting in the
: center. If I is all 4 working together, you would have
: a chance at higher score but have a harder time
: getting a score. It should be integrated so that if
: one robot doesn't perform its task than it will hung
: the other robots, causing the whole alliance to
: loose major points. This will cause the game to be
: more exciting and will satisfy everybody (meaning if
: they want 2v2 or all 4).

: 2. The game field next year will probably be the
: same as this years and last years. Rectangular
: shape with diamond plate stations. With also the
: main objective in the middle with balls or floppies
: at the human station and at the other side of the
: field.

: 3. The game next year should be on multiple
: terrain. Adds the excitement for the game instead
: of just all carpet. Instead of just carpet FIRST can
: add maybe metal surfaces, grit tape surfaces, dirt,
: and maybe some water.

: 4. Hire DJ's that actually plays a variety of music.
: This year it must have been just like 4 songs
: repeated over and over again.

: 5. Have more team pictures stations. Remember
: when you take your picture for your team where it
: says FIRST in the background. Add about 1 or two
: more. I remember waiting there for about an hour
: in the hot sun.

: 6. Have a little something extra, like a lining or
: something, so the floors, in very heavy rain don't
: flood the pit area or the competition. This year that
: was really annoying and dangerous (with the
: electronics and all).

: 7. If you have a media pass for the indoor field in
: the nationals, make it so that you have like you got
: a clear view for the field. This year the indoor
: "media station" was just another place where you
: could sit down. I mean we could have use those
: "special chairs" that no one else was using. Only
: Einstein really had a good place to take video
: shots. Another thing, only be up in the media booth
: if your team is out there, or ready to compete. This
: eliminates the crowding factor by only having about
: 5 people (4 teams + the guy who is taping it for
: FIRST).

: 8. Make Epcot gives us more of the parking lot so
: we can add two more divisions than last year's.
: The side of the parking lot that said they had for
: their "real customers" were no more than 10 cars
: scattered. Believe me they can give us more room.

: 9. Have a separate screen maybe on the tents
: outside or something for the
: 1.) Chairman's Award 2.) Animation
: This will give teams more and better access to see
: the other team's hard work. If it is a Chairman's
: Award Paper submission than FIRST can scan it in
: and on a big screen might be readable.

: 9. Split up the judges to a specific division. This
: will give a more equal and better responses for
: awards.

: 11. Practice should be a little more exciting.
: Because you are waiting and do nothing that whole
: day. Maybe that’s when speakers will come in and
: demonstrate something for us or something.

:
: There is many things I hated about this year but I
: will explain that another time.

: P.S. I hope that more teams next year will give out
: awards. Nothing big, but just something to give to
: other teams that recognizes their effort in helping
: you out. It is almost like a team award can almost
: be as satisfy as a FIRST award because someone
: looked at your team and recognized your effort.


Hey Kyle- My old fogey suggestion about the music.
The songs were great, might use some variation but that's fine. My problem is the incredible noise level in both the pits and the arena. I would like to see less noise in the already noisy pits and save the loud stuff for out on the arena floor. The music THERE would be a welcome prelude to the entering of the arena.
Every year I go home hoarse and half deaf from the competition and it is nearly impossible to find a quiet place to talk to your team. This may be a generational thing but the constant ringing in my ears probably means something...

Re. General Suggitions for Next Year
 

Posted by Ameya Agaskar at 04/22/2001 7:00 PM EST


Student on team #293, Bullbots, from Hopewell Valley Central High School and Janssen/Morehouse Engineering/Lucent/Worldwater/.


In Reply to: Re. General Suggitions for Next Year
Posted by Kyle Fenton on 04/19/2001 2:03 PM EST:



: 1. Make it either 2v2 or all 4 working together. If it is
: 2v2 than your main objective would be to will be to
: rack up the balls and head to the center to a fight
: for the big points for the main objecting in the
: center. If I is all 4 working together, you would have
: a chance at higher score but have a harder time
: getting a score. It should be integrated so that if
: one robot doesn't perform its task than it will hung
: the other robots, causing the whole alliance to
: loose major points. This will cause the game to be
: more exciting and will satisfy everybody (meaning if
: they want 2v2 or all 4).

There could be a scoring system like last year's, with one difference. In the qualifying rounds, the losing alliance keeps its score and the winning alliance gets 3 times the losing alliances score; but if they tie, both alliances get 5 (or some factor higher than 3) times their score. In the elimination rounds, this would be abandoned, and whoever gets the highest score advances.

Small note
 

Posted by Kevin Sevcik at 04/23/2001 4:57 AM EST


College Student on team #57, Leopards, from BT Washington and the High School for Engineering Professions and Exxon, Kellog Brown & Root, Powell Electrical.


In Reply to: Re. General Suggitions for Next Year
Posted by Ameya Agaskar on 04/22/2001 7:00 PM EST:



I like this idea, except there doesn't seem to be any incentive to NOT work together. If you're always going to do incredibly better by having a tied score, then besides punishing inept teams, what's the point of having the option? I think this would only make sense if there's some incentive to compete against each other. Granted, I'm generally against a full fledged competitive competition, but I am for competitions that make sense....

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

Posted by Matt Leese at 04/19/2001 2:05 PM EST


College Student on team #73, Tigerbolt, from Edison Technical HS and Alstom & Fiber Technologies & RIT.


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 agree with you completely. I think the impact of a
simplified game would not only be for the media
however. 73 had not been in competition since 1998 and
after the game was released, a comment made by one of
the teachers who had previously participated (from
'93-'98) said that the game was just to complex. I
also was told that one of our students made the comment
that the SME Robotics Competition was more interesting
than FIRST. The game this year had some neat ideas
(balancing the bridge was one of them), but it tried to
do too much. I highly doubt that we'll see simpler
games with 4 robots to an alliance because if that were
to happen there wouldn't be much for all the robots to
do. It's also much harder to explain how you win
without any onfield competition (it took my team until
week 3 or 4 to understand). I think that more than
anything this year will be a learning experience for
FIRST about what works and what doesn't.

Matt who hopes that FIRST learns the right things from
this years competition....

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

Posted by Patrick Dingle at 04/19/2001 3:14 PM EST


College Student on team #639, Red B^2, from Ithaca High School and Cornell University.


In Reply to: Re: PUSH to Simplify the Game for 2002 ***Attention FIRST **
Posted by Matt Leese on 04/19/2001 2:05 PM EST:



I agree with both Andy and Matt on this one... I don't think there's much more to cover... but I think I'd like to point out that as a rookie team, many of our students were disappointed in this year's game, and frankly there was much less enthusiasm this year about FIRST than i've ever seen before. The few teams that actually did cheer in the stands were likely not even doing it because they were excited about the game -- but because there is an award for making noise. I just don't see the logic in this one -- isn't inspiring students a whole lot more important than this everyone-work-together nonsense that seems to turn more people away than anything? Anyway back to the point -- i agree the game is way to complex and I believe that is why it is so difficult to get any sort of publicity.

Patrick

: I agree with you completely. I think the impact of a
: simplified game would not only be for the media
: however. 73 had not been in competition since 1998 and
: after the game was released, a comment made by one of
: the teachers who had previously participated (from
: '93-'98) said that the game was just to complex. I
: also was told that one of our students made the comment
: that the SME Robotics Competition was more interesting
: than FIRST. The game this year had some neat ideas
: (balancing the bridge was one of them), but it tried to
: do too much. I highly doubt that we'll see simpler
: games with 4 robots to an alliance because if that were
: to happen there wouldn't be much for all the robots to
: do. It's also much harder to explain how you win
: without any onfield competition (it took my team until
: week 3 or 4 to understand). I think that more than
: anything this year will be a learning experience for
: FIRST about what works and what doesn't.

: Matt who hopes that FIRST learns the right things from
: this years competition....

Simple isn't always good...
 

Posted by Hymnson (Captain) at 04/19/2001 2:59 PM EST


Student on team #419, The Rambots, from Boston College High School and UMass Boston and Modern Assistance Programs, Inc..


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 agree that simpifying the game would make
FIRST a more media friendly competition but what
would WE get out of it? Sure, I'd love to be the
center of attention, especially on tv's nationwide
and such. Who doesn't love to be on TV? But by
"dumbing" the game down, we aren't challenging
ourselves and its not fun anymore; it might actually
make it worse. If the game was so simple, any
idiot could join a team and participate inorder to go
on the trip to Florida.

But I think that by making the game complex and
difficult, it really shows which team members are
dedicated and genuinely interested in participating.

Also, as Dean Kamen stated during closing
ceremonies, "we shouldn't compare ourselves to
sports." Its what makes us unique, if we were just
like any other sport (if not the same by replacing
the players with robots). Where would the diversity
and interest be in that? In other words, by
branching away from sports, its what makes FIRST
so special. I like it the way it is and I enjoy the
complexity cuz it'll "make ya think harder." Be more
creative and innovative. Isn't that the goal of FIRST
anyways?

Simplify the scoring, not the game
 

Posted by P.J. Baker at 04/19/2001 3:50 PM EST


Engineer on team #177, Bobcat Robotics, from South Windsor High School and International Fuel Cells.


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



Without the score multiplication, I would submit that this year’s game is almost right from prime time. Here’s why:

1) Multiple tasks – which leads to many different robot designs
2) Multiple levels of difficulty – adds strategy for viewer to consider
3) Race against the clock – adds excitement

Below are my thoughts on why these are good game features:

1) There were only 4 main tasks in this year’s game (5 if you count stretcher pulling):

- Score Large Balls
- Cross The Field
- Score Small Balls
- Balance the bridge

This is just about the right number to keep things interesting without having too many things to keep track of. It was also easy to tell (except for the small number of cases where the bridge did balance in an awkward position) whether or not the task had been accomplished. This wasn’t the case in ’99 or ’00: Were the floppies more than 8’ high? Is the robot more than 2” off the ground? How many of those 4 tangled robots are actually hanging from the bar?

2) The four tasks basically had 4 different levels of difficulty: Simple: crossing the field (although it was harder than many thought); Easy: filling goals w/small balls from the Human; Moderate: Scoring the Large Balls; Very Difficult: Balancing with both goals. Since we got to decide what level of difficulty to go for, the game had a very interesting strategy component. The strategy part is a little difficult to digest right off the bat, but if we had a series of shows I would imagine that people would grow to appreciate it as much as we do.

3) The race against the clock component of the game was big win this year. It made the matches much more exciting to watch, especially in the elimination rounds. This was much more exciting than the ’99 and ’00 games which were often over once one alliance had established control of the puck or the bar (although it was fun to try and take that control away). Even though the silence when things went wrong was a little disconcerting, the cheers when a big score was put up with only a second or two to spare easily made up for it.


From a random viewer’s point of view, I would guess that the hardest thing to contend with would be the score multipliers. If there were just straight point values for the tasks (i.e. 100 pts. For each balanced goal, 2 points for each second remaining on the clock), I don’t think that the scoring would be too hard to digest. Assuming that it’s a series of shows, this type of scoring would not be too hard for the multi-episode viewer to understand.

As far as 2 v. 2 or 4 working together, I doubt that it matters as much as people would like to think. As long as the matches were exciting, people would be willing to watch.

So, there are three things that I think would be good ideas for the framework of the game:

1) It should consists of multiple tasks – but only 3 or 4
2) The Tasks should have differing levels of difficulity
3) There should be a “race against the clock” element

In addition, I would also suggest that they avoid the use of multipliers in the scoring – they are the main reason that this year’s game was difficult to explain.

I think that a game conceived within this framework would be suitable for TV.

The big problem though, is actually getting it on TV. I’m not sure exactly how to do this, but my first guess would be the following: Allow a TV production crew to help Dean and Woodie develop the game. As long as D & W were willing to stand their ground, the TV folks could help push the game in directions that would make it easier to televise.


That’s it for now. Sorry for being so long winded. Hopefully this will help spark some further discussion.


P.J. Baker
Team #177

Re: Simplification - A dissention
 

Posted by Kris Verdeyen at 04/19/2001 4:06 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:



The best thing that a complex game has going for it is that it lends itself to many different ways to win. A simple game (like basketball) will lead to hundreds of robots that can pick the ball up, and shoot it. It will come down to whoever makes the most reliable robot and has the best drivers wins.

Now, I know that reliability and driving are very important parts of engineering, but FIRST is "For Inspiriation". I've never looked at a Honda Civic, in all its reliable glory, and felt inspired. Inspiration comes from thinking about problems that have many obvious solutions, all of them equally bad, and discovering one out of the blue that blows them away.

I think that FIRST needs to keep giving us complex games, and we need to keep finding creative solutions to do what the game calls for.

Basketball robots
 

Posted by Andy Baker at 04/19/2001 5:24 PM EST


Engineer on team #45, TechnoKats, from Kokomo High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.


In Reply to: Re: Simplification - A dissention
Posted by Kris Verdeyen on 04/19/2001 4:06 PM EST:



: The best thing that a complex game has going for it is that it lends itself to many different ways to win. A simple game (like basketball) will lead to hundreds of robots that can pick the ball up, and shoot it. It will come down to whoever makes the most reliable robot and has the best drivers wins.

Aha... basketball is not simple. There would be some shooters, but there would also be some dunkers, blockers (defenders), and passers. Definitely, basketball is not a simple game... plus it would be easy for everyone to understand.

Imagine this:

A passer-bot brings the ball up the court and passes it to a shooter-bot, who is defended by a blocker-bot. The shooter-bot has to use picks or screens to get open for the pass from the passer-bot. Once the shooter-bot gets the ball, it tries to shoot. If it misses (which would be often), the dunker-bot could rebound and slam it home!

A 3 on 3 game would be pretty cool. FIRST could run the competition like a Gus Macker tournament... many teams play short games and by the end of the weekend, there is a winner.

Maybe the rest of you are a bit afraid of us Hoosiers stomping all over your 'bots out there on the hardwood. :)

I definitely know that people around here would simply go "ga-ga" over a basketball game played by robots. I can see demos during the halftime shows of Purdue-IU games, and also at a Pacer game.

Simple it would not be. There could be defense, fouls, lane violations, and lots of action... "just look at those two robots banging it up down in the low post!"

Also, you would see some robots play "above the rim" while others would be speedy and be looking out to steal the ball away from the opposition.

That's just what I think... maybe I've lived in Indiana too long.

Andy B.

Increased Communication
 

Posted by Adrian Wong at 04/19/2001 5:30 PM EST


Student on team #596, Hopkinton Hillers, from Hopkinton High School and Zymark, EMC, and Computer Associates.


In Reply to: Basketball robots
Posted by Andy Baker on 04/19/2001 5:24 PM EST:



Good insights. I'd like to add that there would be an extra shift toward communication between the teams as well.

While the idea of a basketball-themed robot game is exciting, I wonder how well each robot/operator would work together to form a cohesive team. How will the teams coordinate with each other? (Perhaps the introduction of headsets and microphones on the field?)

Seems like an interesting idea to pursue. Plus, this would become a good selling point to entice students into the FIRST program. :)

Well...
 

Posted by Kevin Sevcik at 04/19/2001 11:26 PM EST


College Student on team #57, Leopards, from BT Washington and the High School for Engineering Professions and Exxon, Kellog Brown & Root, Powell Electrical.


In Reply to: Basketball robots
Posted by Andy Baker on 04/19/2001 5:24 PM EST:



I think the point Kris was trying to make was that the tasks in basketball are relatively simple and easy to accomplish. Point, being, there wouldn't be much variety or creativity in the robots. As you just pointed out, the basketball game would break down into just 4 types of robots. All the robots would either be big and pushy or quick and agile. So you've got just 8 kinds of robots. While this year, you could have limbo bots, wedges, big ballers, off bridge balancers, on bridge balancers, bridge flippers, small ball scorers, etc.
I think the whole point here is that more complex games encourage trying different approaches to the problem. Everybody already knows how to play basketball, so there wouldn't be any robots that make you say, "Wow, I didn't think of doing that." The same goes for a simple game. Everyone will rather quickly figure out how things should be done, and creativity will play a much smaller role in the competition.
Anyways, those are my thought on this. I'm slowly reading my way up this thread, so I'll probably repeat myself a few posts above this.

Re: Basketball robots
 

Posted by Wayne Cokeley at 04/20/2001 12:17 AM EST


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


In Reply to: Basketball robots
Posted by Andy Baker on 04/19/2001 5:24 PM EST:



: : The best thing that a complex game has going for it is that it lends itself to many different ways to win. A simple game (like basketball) will lead to hundreds of robots that can pick the ball up, and shoot it. It will come down to whoever makes the most reliable robot and has the best drivers wins.

: Aha... basketball is not simple. There would be some shooters, but there would also be some dunkers, blockers (defenders), and passers. Definitely, basketball is not a simple game... plus it would be easy for everyone to understand.

: Imagine this:

: A passer-bot brings the ball up the court and passes it to a shooter-bot, who is defended by a blocker-bot. The shooter-bot has to use picks or screens to get open for the pass from the passer-bot. Once the shooter-bot gets the ball, it tries to shoot. If it misses (which would be often), the dunker-bot could rebound and slam it home!

: A 3 on 3 game would be pretty cool. FIRST could run the competition like a Gus Macker tournament... many teams play short games and by the end of the weekend, there is a winner.

: Maybe the rest of you are a bit afraid of us Hoosiers stomping all over your 'bots out there on the hardwood. :)

: I definitely know that people around here would simply go "ga-ga" over a basketball game played by robots. I can see demos during the halftime shows of Purdue-IU games, and also at a Pacer game.

: Simple it would not be. There could be defense, fouls, lane violations, and lots of action... "just look at those two robots banging it up down in the low post!"

: Also, you would see some robots play "above the rim" while others would be speedy and be looking out to steal the ball away from the opposition.

: That's just what I think... maybe I've lived in Indiana too long.

: Andy B.

I really doubt if FIRST would ever consider robotic basketball for two reasons;
1. it would glorify and give credence to professional sports and look like FIRST was trying to imitate them- and Dean Kamen would never do that.
2. there are several robotic basketball games around the world, mostly in Asia and on the small robot scale. I doubt if FIRST would want to look like they are copying any of them.

The idea of an original game will most likely always be in FIRST's minds. That's fine- but lets see some team vs team interactions again.

WC

Re: Basketball robots
 

Posted by Kris Verdeyen at 04/20/2001 6:18 PM EST


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


In Reply to: Basketball robots
Posted by Andy Baker on 04/19/2001 5:24 PM EST:



: That's just what I think... maybe I've lived in Indiana too long.

Actually, Andy, I grew up in Indiana, and just moved to Texas not quite a year ago.

It seems Indiana teams kick everyone's butt at all the other FIRST games, why would robo-basketball be any different? :)

Kris

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

Posted by Jeremy Davis at 04/19/2001 4:21 PM EST


Student on team #422, Mech Techs, from Governor's School and Verizon/AMF Bakery 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:



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

If we're going to be in the habit of comparing ourselves to sports, please name a single one that is simple other than perhaps golf. It takes years for people to understand the rules of a game, especially if they don't watch it day in and day out. The fact is, sports are complicated. The reason FIRST isn't on TV is that people are more interested in people competing than robots competing.

But besides the fact that its not all that different from sports, simple games in FIRST are boring. You have to have a plethora of strategies available, or all the robots will look alike, and alliances would result in useless robots. So why not do away with alliances? Because once again, this adds considerably to the challenge and interest of the game. To have to strategize with another team in only 2 minutes before you compete can be incredibly interesting and intense. Not to mention having robots working together produces more amazing results for the cameras. Once again, most sports involve teams, why shouldn't FIRST?

Just some thoughts.

-Jeremy Davis

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.