Chief Delphi

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   General Forum (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   2004 Game (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20081)

dez250 18-04-2003 19:34

jake if that was on the archimedes field, i would just want to say from being a volunteer then, CONRADS... cause we only saw that occur that one time.... And man how hard it is to explain to some people who werent there at that time how it happened and how long it just stayed on the barrier with out falling off.

~Dez

Adam Krajewski 18-04-2003 21:32

In looking at many of the FIRST games of the past, I've come up with the following conclusions:

1. Points scored for robot position at the end of the match should be minimized or should be part of a multiplier.
10 points for hanging on the bar in 2000 was reasonable when compared with the 5 points for each of the 4 black balls. Similarly, in 1999, being on the puck did you no good without scoring other points. Just imagine the 2003 game if being on top of the ramp was only worth 10 points, or even 5 points. This would have put a much bigger emphasis on stacking. It also will avoid a "BattleBots" mentality in the mad scramble for end position.

2. Cooperation is good.
However, it is somewhat difficult to do while maintaining an exciting and easy to follow game. I think elements from the 2000-2003 games could be combined to form an exciting game that emphasizes teamwork as well as individual performance.

3. Qualifying rounds and elimination rounds should use similar scoring and strategy.
A strategy that scores a winning score in the qualifying rounds should be the same strategy that win the elimination rounds, such as with 2001, only in a competitive format. In previous years, 2002 is a great example, cooperation is thrown out the window due to the 'best of three' format. I think this was the idea behind the 2 match system used this year. It was somewhat effective, but I believe it could be improved upon. I think this will be the most challenging portion of the game design for 2004.

4. Scoring object should be (somewhat) easy to manipulate and points value should emphasize using it to score.
Bins were difficult for even the best stackers to orient for scoring. They were also far to fragile for bashing that took place in this year's game. Also, because stacks were so easy to topple and the points that could be scored with them were somewhat small when compared with the 25 you got for the ramp, fitting in with conclusion #1. Balls fit this description because they are easily collected. Even inner-tubes are much easier to handle than boxes. The boxes were also too large to be manipulated effectively into big enough stacks for high scores or in the quantity needed to overcome the 25 point ramp bonus.

5. Clever design solutions should be the goal, not traction.
The need for a 6 motor drivetrains and exotic traction materials over a well performing stacking assembly takes away from the spirit of the competition. The perfect example of this is the 2002 game.

6. Collusion and other (even accidental) illegal activities should be designed out of the game.
The game needs to be designed to minimize any illegal activities that could take place. Pre-made human player stacks, seeing as stacks were so difficult to make with scoring the way it was, makes collusion possible. In none of the other cooperative scoring games was a multiplier like this easily given at the beginning of a match. Similarly, box placement before the match was easily made illegal by simply accidentally tipping over a hastily built stack.

7. Human player's role should be less "sport-like".
The human player's strategic role this year, as opposed to basket shooting skills, was an improvement over the older games. Unique scoring objects also help to provide worth while human interaction with the robots. Desperation floppy tosses in 1999 were more exciting and enjoyable to watch than all the last second human player balls in 2000.

I am working on a game idea to bring these qualities together.
Number 3 is the one I am having the most problems with.

One idea I would love to see is a point multiplier for all of the teams on the field in a competitive (2 vs. 2 or 1 vs. 1 vs. 1 vs. 1, etc.) game format. The difficulty I'm facing with that is to make it attractive in the elimination rounds.

Adam

sevisehda 19-04-2003 08:33

I've heard multiple complaints about the 25 points for parking on the ramp. It's high compaired to past "zone-scores". I think that this problem stems from the game and its developement. Its likely that at no point during the game design period anyone thought the game would be played the way it was. I suspect from reading the rules and seeing the video FIRST expected a 6+ stack on each side and plently of boxes to multiply. Also by using the HDPE the thought that would inhibit bots from parking as easy. It probobly never occured to them that bots was useless in 99.99% of the matches and the HDPE was not an obstacle. 25 points in a match that FIRST thought would score in the low to mid hundreds is less critical than in the <100 matches that were all so common. Had the stackers regularly made stacks of 6+ and the scores gone regularly into the 200+ area a 25 point bonus is little.

In the past games have played similarly to how FIRST designed them to played. This year it seems like the crates were just too difficult and no team devolped a fool proof method of handling them. In the future hopefully the design committe will thouroly think out what the game will look like when its actually played.

ngreen 19-04-2003 08:56

I like a Frisbee Frenzy like game, but with a twist. Make the last 30 seconds autonomous. Do three zones similar to this year. Place a bunch of Frisbees in the middle. And give the human players a least 5, maybe more like 10 Frisbees. Yay HPs! Have a bin/slot in each of the corners marked off with reflective tape. Score one by number of Frisbees in scoring area. Score 10-20 by making Frisbees in bin. And make the HP Frisbees the multiplier Frisbee, if they make it in the bins. 30 seconds of robots autonomously throwing Frisbees would be great, and hard. But you could still move Frisbees into your scoring area. And any Frisbees that go into the audience become souvenirs.

DanL 19-04-2003 09:53

I still say having auto mode at the end will result in a really crumby game.

And although I LOVE the idea of using frisbees, I'm not sure if the game you describe would work. One of the simplest ways to play it: do what you can in regular mode, and as auto mode draws near, position yourself in front of the opponent's goal, activate a pair of sails or a net of some sort, then wait for your sit-still-and-be-blocking-the-goal-for-thirty-seconds auto program to kick in.

Also, for all the people who want a frisbee game, I love frisbee. However, from playing with frisbee's all the time, to make a robot that tosses frisbees well is VERY complicated. Not only would you have to develop a mechanism that adds spin to the frisbee, you'd have to develop a mechanism that can release the frisbee (WHILE adding spin to it at the same time) and a mechanism to reload the frisbee launcher, possibly with frisbees from the ground. The point is, if FIRST did decide to use frisbees, maybe one or two teams would make a frisbee launcher. For the rest, like the stacking this year, it just wouldn't be worth it and they'd build box-on-wheels plowing bots or bots that would block the goal.

Point is, in my opion, a game designed for frisbees will be just as anti-climatic as this year's game way - it's not going to be played the way the game creators wanted it to be played. Frisbees and ultimate will just have to be left to the people who play it outside during lunchtime.

Adam Y. 19-04-2003 10:02

Quote:

Also, for all the people who want a frisbee game, I love frisbee. However, from playing with frisbee's all the time, to make a robot that tosses frisbees well is VERY complicated. Not only would you have to develop a mechanism that adds spin to the frisbee, you'd have to develop a mechanism that can release the frisbee (WHILE adding spin to it at the same time) and a mechanism to reload the frisbee launcher, possibly with frisbees from the ground. The point is, if FIRST did decide to use frisbees, maybe one or two teams would make a frisbee launcher. For the rest, like the stacking this year, it just wouldn't be worth it and they'd build box-on-wheels plowing bots or bots that would block the goal.
Im sure some teams would find the obvious answer and just collect the frisbees and dump them without throwing them.

DanL 19-04-2003 10:53

exactly, and so the point is why use frisbee's in the first place? A frisbee-based game would just come out to be a disapointment because no one would use frisbees the way they're designed to be used (kinda like this year's game was a disapointment because almost nobody used the bins the way the game was designed to have them used). You might as well use something that IS designed to be "collected" and "dumped."

Jake177 19-04-2003 11:05

Going back to the end position points for a sec. I think that 2001 was the best year that I have seen as far as the right value for end position. It was small enough that some teams completely ignored it and built bots that balanced on the bridge with the 2 goals. But it was also large enough that some teams (like us) designed bots that could balance the goals on the bridge and still be able to ge the points.

George1902 19-04-2003 14:17

i think the floppy in '99 was supposed to simulate a frisbee. the HP's could throw them like that, but the robots didn't have to because it would be too tough.

i'd love to see floppies return, but i doubt it will happen. FIRST has started a trend over the past 2 years that i really like. and now for a prediction to rival the skills of the great Car Knack Jr!!!

You will be able to purchase next year's game piece at your local Wal-Mart

soccer balls... storage bins... FIRST wants these things to be way easy to buy (anyone wanna argue that floppies were easy to get? no? i didn't think so). so next time your walkin through the store, look around and think, "Which of these things could i see this as a game piece in next year's game?"

miketwalker 19-04-2003 14:41

Whatever it is, I'd like to see it as something aerial. Something that you need more than just a pushbot to score points. Unfortunatly the past 2 years have made it where you can be a pushbot and do really well. I'd like to have a like goal suspended in the air or something that you'd have to have a mechanism to load it and you couldn't just be a box. It would make for many new offshoots on robot designs.

ngreen 19-04-2003 15:56

The frisbee game has more merit than some of you recognize.

First of all it is easy enough for everyone to compete. Who can't push a frisbee into a scoring zone.

Second, it would take at two robots to block the scoring net/bin for the high pointage frisbees. There would be at least two container maybe three on a side, space far enough apart that I would love to see someone block it.

Third, It give the HPs a fun and meaningful task. Get one of your 4-5 frisbees in the goal and you double your score of frisbees in your zone, if they don't make the net they will count as regular frisbee in the scoring zone or the other team can pick them up and throw them in their net for a multiplier.

Fourth, the bins/net will be high enough that it will take a neat design to lift the frisbees and dump them in, say 7 feet high to accomodate the people with short roofs in there robot work space.

Fifth, The autonomous could be reduce to 20 seconds, but think how fun it could be. One stategy would be to collect all the frisbee that are in the area and when autonoumous mode hits be able to locate the target, net, and lauch a frenzy of frisbees at it in the last 20 second. Others could block, would have to extend to block, seven feet,, Some could sweep the area. Many strategies could be implemented.

Many of you may say this is too complex with autonomous but their are simple and hard task for scoring, whether that is making a frisbee in a goal for a 10 times amount the points of making it in the area. You would only need to make one for every ten frisbees in the other teams scoring area, A great advantage to a frisbee tosser. But the complexity of the problem makes the points worth it. And why not try, many frisbees that fail to make the goal would fall back into the scoring area.

These are just my thoughts. Enjoy. And Frisbee Frenzy in 2004.

BTW You can puchase frisbees and nets at your local wal-mart store.

Joe Matt 19-04-2003 16:15

Quote:

Originally posted by George1083

You will be able to purchase next year's game piece at your local Wal-Mart

soccer balls... storage bins... FIRST wants these things to be way easy to buy (anyone wanna argue that floppies were easy to get? no? i didn't think so). so next time your walkin through the store, look around and think, "Which of these things could i see this as a game piece in next year's game?"

.........

PAINTBALL!!! :ahh: :yikes:

DougHogg 19-04-2003 17:12

Quote:

Originally posted by robohyo

Frisbee Frenzy in 2004.

Sounds good to me.

I would like a game where the alternate scoring methods can't be easily nullified, as usually happened this year to robot built stacks. Also a variety of ways to score would make things more interesting as it would be less obvious what the winning strategy is.

Hey, frisbees could be the item. I would love to see a robot send a frisbee soaring. The scoring should be arranged so that any robot that can accurately throw a frisbee gets a good sized bonus.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:48.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi