Chief Delphi - 3,2,1, Liftoff! (DLC Pack 3 Speculation)

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)

- General Forum (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)

- - 3,2,1, Liftoff! (DLC Pack 3 Speculation) (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=152695)

Re: 3,2,1, Liftoff! (DLC Pack 3 Speculation)

Quote:

Originally Posted by XaulZan11 (Post 1621790)

In terms of design, teams will have to decide to build a really light robot or a heavy robot that scores a lot.

If next year's weight rule is like last year's:

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2016 R5

The ROBOT weight must not exceed 120 lbs. When determining weight, the basic ROBOT structure and all elements of all additional MECHANISMS that might be used in different configurations of the ROBOT shall be weighed together...

You might have (for examples) a 120 pound robot with 90 pounds of removable mechanisms, or a 20 pound robot core with a 20 pound set of mechanisms and an 80 pound set of mechanisms.

...or you may want to invest in the stock of Pelican cases...

Re: 3,2,1, Liftoff! (DLC Pack 3 Speculation)

Quote:

Originally Posted by XaulZan11 (Post 1621790)

A really cool game would be to put game pieces (maybe with different weights?) into a bucket that is connected to a platform on a teeter totter type thing. Robots spend the entire match placing game pieces into the bucket and then drive onto the platform for the 'end game'. At the end of the match, the bucket engages the platform and will raise the platform is there is enough weight in the bucket (or the platform is light enough). A significant bonus (similar to capturing a tower in 2016) will be given based on if the platform raised and how many robots are on the platform.

In terms of design, teams will have to decide to build a really light robot or a heavy robot that scores a lot. During the match, alliances will have to make the decision to have 0, 1, 2 or 3 robots drive on the platform based on how much weight they think they have in the bucket, making the end game extremely exciting to see if they made the right decision.

I think you might be on to something. Maybe the game will be filling the buckets with "water", which goes to a "boiler" to make steam, which drives the platform up. Now that I think about it, it could be a bit of a platformer game with several levels and elevator platforms.

Re: 3,2,1, Liftoff! (DLC Pack 3 Speculation)

Quote:

Originally Posted by ctt956 (Post 1621806)

As cool as that might be, I find it unlikey the GDC would make a game with field components as complex as that. Generally speaking teams need to be able to replicate the field components to practice and design with. Having to build a (semi)funcitonal elevator mechanism for a practice field sounds like a nightmare to me.

Re: 3,2,1, Liftoff! (DLC Pack 3 Speculation)

Quote:

Originally Posted by cad321 (Post 1621810)

True. Maybe it could use something commercially available though, like these. Lifting robots from their centers would make for an interesting challenge... Or, as mentioned in other threads, there could be a train. Maybe this train will be fueled by items placed somewhere on the field, and the train will transport other items.

Re: 3,2,1, Liftoff! (DLC Pack 3 Speculation)

Quote:

Originally Posted by cad321 (Post 1621810)

Yeah. This could operate in reality more like the 2012 bridges*, though. Maybe there are several on the field with the ones on ramp platforms having less advantageous fulcrums or rotational stiffnesses. Each alliance has to make the strategic decision where to load game pieces and climb (and block).

Alternatively, all these complicated interconnections could be done in the "story" rather than in real physics. It's not like we actually broke the castle by throwing real boulders at it every match, or physically destroyed the defenses we breached (usually). And this is the year of STEArtM, after all. Plus as a referee, if you give me a choice between an actually really heavy game piece and a foam ball named "Boulder", I know which one I'm choosing.

*I know, I know. But at least it has precedent; maybe the newer version would be better to build.