Now that would be a FIRST battle.

Very good point. FIRST wants to make things cheap and inexpensive for teams. Imagine how many teams bought those boxes and what are they going to do with them now!?! If you've noticed the same balls were used 3 years in a row and in 98 they used the really big balls that they used in 2002. Anybody see the patern? Cheap and reusable.

the boxes break too fast. most of our tubs have cracks in them. really sucks.

yup
 

FIRST being FIRST they might figure out some weird way to incorporate them in next years game. Just like they did with the balls for 3 years straight!

volunteers point of view at the bins
 

hey everyone as a volunteer at nationals i have a point of view you all may like to read. It was a hectic weekend on Friday and Saturday as i was volunteering on the Archimedes field, nto due to the matches more or less but much of due to the bins. During the matches, the bins would brake and shatter and crack, many were able to be saved and reused again, but if you saw between the newton and curie fields i think was a bin curtained off area in there we had a bin station. we would make 100's at a time with the rivets and stickers and Human Player tape and it was long. Aty points in thew days fields were behind schedule due to the bins needing to be replaced after matches and not all ways having an adequite supply at the field. This FIRST prob will still use the boxes or at least a bin with the same demensions to save you from getting new ones but i did hear them talking about trying to find "indestructable" ones that could brake but not as easy as this years. As a volunteer and a student on team 250 i know that the bins have made an interesting game but it also made a hard time for everyone. so dont be surprised if we have a game that involves the bins again but it could also involve past items like balls too... Now what about that!
~Mike

Re: volunteers point of view at the bins
 

I've heard different...
Sources I talked to said that FIRST already knew of a better, more indestructable bin, but chose not to use it because it was: heavier, and more expensive.

We saw the damage some of these bins can do to a light cover... imagine a pile of HEAVIER bins smashing down onto an unprotected robot...

OUCH!:eek:

I have become very concerned during the course of the competition season about the number of bins that were breaking during the matches, and the associated cost to FIRST of all the broken bins. To minimize the expense per competition event, we are seeking ways to reduce the consumption of bins. I'm currently working on design for a bin made out of concrete that will not break for next year's competition... :D

-dave

p.s. in re-reading this, I realize that some things (like smart-a$$ comments) just do not come through with full impact via the written word...:D :D

I seriously doubt FIRST will use the bins again. Any game with them would probably just become a crash-fest like this year, since they're so hard to stack and work with. Besides, fresh and new ideas are always more fun. Would bins be as creative the second time around? I think not... FIRST will come up with something even more sinister and diabolical for next year.

"Can you add a reply to that thread that indicates we would like to see steps
(2 of them 8" apart and 8" deep to a 24" off the ground platform."
Mentor Mark Miller

Bins
 

The bins this year were definitely too flimsy. At Nationals we ran one into the edge of the polycarb and the polycarb cut right through it. I'll try to get a picture for you.

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

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

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.

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.

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.