2004 Game
 

I know im jumping ahead again.... but how many of you think we are going to go back to the 4 partner alliance like in 2001??? Alot of people were complaining during that season because there was no competition within the game itself. Due to the fact that we all worked together. Yet then you get to this year and you have teams rigging matches left and right. Note: 2 years ago we were complaining that there was no competition.... and here we are doing this. So do you think FIRST is going to back to the whole "working together" thing, or stick with the "friendly competition" for next years game???

I think it'll be a totally new system...

I like this style a lot more than a 4-team alliance - I haven't been invovled in FIRST enough to expierience that, but it's something I think would rather dull. I think the problem this year with rigging matches had more to do with the game and rule design than it did with a 2 vs. 2 concept. Besides, for the most part, games were not rigged. Why let just a few bad seeds ruin the fun for the rest of us? Keep 2 vs. 2, I say.

Im with you on that one Dan!!!

My year
 

The all together 4 thing was my last year in FIRST. That competition sucked in my oppinion. There was no mystery on who would win. Beaty got insane points much above the rest of the other teams and there was nothing you could do about it.
HOPEFULLY! FIRST won't make that mistake again. I'm sure they're going to try to stop destruction of robots though. AKA FLIPPING! I'm sure FIRST is going to try something like stopping a certain inclined wedge or something. A lot of those teams with a wedge who say they try not to flip robots did it to flip robots. Theres a huge difference between a 30 degreen incline and a 60 degree one. 30 will flip you fast, 60 might get somebody off your back. What I want to see.. The return of a need to get some part of your robot above 9 feet. I'm tired of all these low to the ground robots. You can't see the competition half the time because somebody is in your way. When they had floppies everything was high and it was just soooo COOL!

Back in '98 when it was still 1 vs. 1 vs. 1 there was a lot of controversy. Here's the short version of it all. In the double elimination matches at EPCOT it was not uncommon to have a match with one dominant team and two very weak ones. In many of these matches it was suspected that the two weaker teams colluded to stop the dominant team. The weaker teams would forget about trying to score and would both pin the stronger team. The match would be decided by the human players, since none of the three teams were scoring (they were busy having a pinning contest). The game was essentially reduced to a free throw contest. (The game in 98 had a 8 foot high goal)

There was a very small number of teams who engaged in this type of behavior, but there were enough that FIRST took notice. The following year at kickoff Woody described the above situation. He then said "So you guys decided to work together last year, so this year we're making you do it!" (I'm paraphrasing, but it's pretty close) So that's part of the reason we have our current alliance format. By no means were the majority of teams playing this way, but there were still enough for FIRST to make the change.

As a result of the colluding that a small number of teams participated in this year, I would not be at all surprised if FIRST decides to revamp the game. Going back to 4 vs. 0 could be a possibility.

Of course, knowing FIRST I would expect them to have some sort completely new and challenging format for us!

I predict that FIRST is done with bars. We had it in '01 and now in '03. FIRST is also done with balls as many teams have mastered ball handling over the years. Also, I think FIRST is done with ramps but not inclines alltogether. I have a strong feeling there will be stairs. 2001 kind of matched the Segway with the idea of balancing and I think 2004 will be inspired by the I-Bot and we will have to climb stairs. Next years game will promote very complex and manipulative subsytems that will be useful in competition. This year's game somewhat backfired in that the complex stackers did poorly and the basic drive pushbots did well. There was little design inspiration as a result of this year's game. I know that will significantly change next year. Also, I have a feeling next year will encourage lifting something to an extreme height. Too many robots had high CG problems and this is a key challenge that needs to be overcome in a tall design.

/me wants stairs in 2004 game.

I've thought the same thing. From what I know FIRST has never tried stairs. As far as I know the closest to stairs I've ever seen was the puck from 98. That in my oppinion was the best FIRST ever had to offer. The game was complex and there were SOOO many ways people could win and score. I want to see that same complexity again. Everybody had a chance and everybody seemed to have something REALLY REALLY cool to show. Now all i see is really low robots. They all look the same to me. They all do the same thing. It's just about as bad as the 2001 competion of 4vs0.

And I definatly do think they're going to try something where the action can be seen up high. I really do agree with the guy above that balls are definatly out. AT LEAST the small ones. They did them for what... 3 years in a row!!! 2000 you had to put them in a a troth, 2001 you put them in a skinny goal, 2002 you put them in a REALLY big goal. I want to see the return of a similar floppy type item. That or something really cool like having to pick the balls out of the air or something.


This year's game seems to have many low robots and rookies seem to do very well by just having a drive going. It's boring. I want to see diversity among robots, not just the same design over and over and over.

The whole 4 on 0 thing was kind of dull. Teams didn't really seem excited after a match unless it was a ultra high score. People went to the matches like work. Gave high fives or would shake hands after then leave. The 1 on 1 on 1 had the teaming up problems. The 2 on 2 is traditionally the easiest most reliable format. Some games lend themself to collusion and others don't.

Its true the veteran teams can manipulate a ball in there sleep but rookie teams don't have the experience. So the game always has to be relatively simple. I'm waiting for a game in whcih the field is the game. 2001 had a sample with the bridge.

Stairs would be fun but teams with less resources would have a huge disadvantage. Year to year the game has to be simple for the new teams but different from the previous years to throw of the old teams.


Actual game ideas.

Instead of a flat top to the hill have one of those flexable bridges they have on playgrounds.

To go from side to side teams would have to go through an airlock where they'd have to pull 1 lever to open the first gate. Then go in let the first gate close then pull another lever to unlock a second gate. Only 1 gate could open at a time.

A six basket ferris wheel teams would have to place a ball/box in each basket to score.

More jungle gym things, a set of horizontal bars 6 ft above the field. Teams would have to swing across in order to get over a moat.

Instead of an actual moat have a marker area that would identify one. If you entered it you would be disabled for a period of time.

My dream game. Since we're at reliant stadium we'll use the football field. But the bots will need to be bigger so max dimensions are 8ft x 12ft x 12ft. The crates can be 6ft x 6ft x 6ft plywood boxes(similar to most teams crates). Rules are the same as this years game. The kit of parts include an old pickup truck.

The puck was from 1999

Cory

only problem with this is that me and my friend can't lift that robot and carry it through a standard size door. that's the only reason we have a limit on weight/size of robots. that, and the fact that bigger stuff costs more, specifically more money that many teams don't have as is. of course, nothing's stopping you from turning an old pickup into a robot... ;)

i agree with the general idea that this year's game was, well, dull. i know there's gotta be something more interesting, such as the puck and the bridge (i wasn't in FIRST then, but i've seen movies/heard stories). i mean, yes, the ramp was interesting this year, but way too overvalued. that's the other problem. points must be given fairly. if a ball in a goal is one point, don't make that goal worth 100 points if it's in a certain place. otherwise, teams ignore the low points. hence, this year, we had almost no stacks.

If the spirit of the rule was to get the bot through the door, you could just drive an S10 through it. Plus that was my dream game, and I wasn't being serious.

As for the game format, i think something unique should be tried. At this time, i'm not as clever as Dean and his gang when it comes to game making, but i have a couple ideas. Perhaps a 4 vs. 2 idea, in which 4 people are on the offense, and 2 on the defense. Half of your 8 games will be on either side. Or perhaps 3 vs 3.

Next year, something interesting i'd like to perhaps see, is instead only starting in auton mode, why not end in it? You can have your robot navigate to a position and or put itself in a position. The flaw to this is for rookies and for us programmers who had a hard enough time as it was. Plus, teams that used the sensors this year would likely have an advantage.

Wow, ending in auto mode would probably be really complicated. I think that it would be interesting to see 3 vs. 3 robots, though. I think that this years game has potential, but knocking down stacks was just so easy to do that stacking was sometimes not worth attempting. It ended up being a bulldozing game this year. I think that whatever the game is next year, it should be thought out so that the game doesn't turn repetious like this years.

meh... I'm not sure there would be a point to this... I mean, if you had to accomplish a certain task in the game, then why not just do it before the game ends? Like if the point was to end in a certain spot, I'd just navigate there before the game was over and sit there. Sure, if it was something like king of the hill, you COULD have an autonamous battle for the hill, but I think more often than not, the strategy would be to get there before the auto mode begins and activate the sit-and-brake auto program.

Not to mention that with the amount of inaccuracy (and failures) invovled with auto programs, ending the match in auto would often be anticlimatic.

The fun of auto mode this year is that rather than it being the deciding factor of the match, it was what gave people a little extra umph - even if you had a crummy auto program, you could still win.

My two cents.

It's not hard or expensive to build a robot that travels up stairs. With the tri-star design all you need is 12 small tires, roller chain, and some sprockets. Tank treads are a lot more complicated but still get the job done but you may need a little fancy designing to do figure out how to get the treads to ride up the stairs. Even giant wheels would get the job done like monster trucks riding on the cars. As long as the wheel's center isn't not below the obstacle then it will travel up the stairs. There is another method to travel up and over obstacles but it looks horrendously difficult to explain without a diagram. Stairs may be a little too complicated though how about pot holes.:)

I've heard that WAAAAAAY to many times.... if I've learned one thing through robotics, it's that if someone tries to convince you to do something by telling you it's not that hard, you ALWAYS work to the last minute getting it done.

Meh wheels and tank treads are pretty reliable ways to get up stairs.

MMmmmmm stairs
 

While sitting in Grand rapids at the WMR, I started to make wild predictions for next year.

And I say Stairs.

What a limit to indoor mobile robotics.... We will have to overcome. Any anything with high CGs willbe cool, since people like to watch robots fall over..... ok, not thier makers, but civilians LOVE it.

[quote]Originally posted by EvanG
Perhaps a 4 vs. 2 idea, in which 4 people are on the offense, and 2 on the defense. Half of your 8 games will be on either side.

Hmm, a very intresting idea

I like the outnumbered robot idea, although 6 bots on 1 fiel might be a bit much.
The challenge for the outnumbered alliance/ robot would have to be simple enough tht they would have a decent chance to beat the larger alliance.

Reminds me of those 1 vs 3 games from mario party for nintendo 64

I agree that having a separate offensive and defensive team is an interesting idea, although i think 4 vs. 2 would be too complicated to watch with 6 robots on the field. Maybe a 2 vs. 2 or a 2 vs. 1 depending on the game. This would force teams to play the game as prescribed, and completely eliminate any potential collusion. It mimics baseball in a way, forcing robots to be able to play 2 completely different positions. If this occurred, we may finally see more robots that have parts to switch on and off their robots, much like in the lego league.

While bringing up collusion, I just want to make sure that the people who posted earlier understand that collusion is NOT inherent to the 2 vs. 2 style of gameplay, only the scoring system that has been used the past two years. I do realize to continue that further would be getting off topic, so I will leave it at that.

You keep saying "change the alliance setup," but i'm suprised no one's ever thought about a 1 on 3 game.

Mabye like this: one end of the feild is the scoring zone for the one robot and the others have to stop it from getting there. have some special terrain of sorts (Make it so the lone robot can have 4+ ways of getting up to the scoring sone (stairs, etc.)). Add in some other ways of scoring, mabye moving a large cube onto one end of the feild or something. The team of 3 get the number of second it took the other robot to sit fully on the end for a score, and have the one robot get 120 - his time in secs. for a score and voila. game=designed.

It's be interesting because one match you may be a defender, and next time, you could be on the offense.

Finals with that would be a little odd, though.

Sorry, I'm just rambling a bit.

The only changes that need to be made is that FIRST needs to take 20-50 FIRST vets and have them sit in a room to discuss a game plan that FIRST proposes.

This years game was great. It involved programming/electronics more yet still required the drive team to do a lot.

However, the problem was that the effects the game rules would have on robot design were not carefully thought out. Being on top was worth too much and we found out that destruction is easier than creation.

By not going through these 'little' things, the game turned into a brawl more often than an elegant match of stacking. Though the game is entitled stack attack, the whole section in the rules about stacks was almost not needed at all because the other sections clearly showed to certain designers that winning didn't require stacking.

My proposal stands that FIRST makes an elegant game. Then they get veterans of the game, engineers, etc to discuss for an extended (perhaps 1-2 weeks) the effects on design and game outcome if the rules were implemented and how to revise it to make it more balanced.

However, my one change would be 1v1 matches. Then robots are judged by how good they are and not whether the alliance partner can move. This does not seem practical with the 50+ teams at some regionals, but I would trade my 8 qualifying matches for 4 with just our robot against another.

The playing feild has to be very basic and cheap, teams used to complain because fields cost too much and were impossible to be temporary. If you look at the past 4 years the fields have been about the same size, the perimiter railings very similar and the player stations virtually identicle. Having huge features is something avoided, like the hills they had a long time ago. 6 bots a a field would be fun but very crowded. This year looked crowded because the crates took up a good amount of room as well. I really can't see a big vs small aliiance because it would lead to enourmous damage to bots. The defender would just be a tank, the majority of teams would go modular and remove manipulators and add rams. Plus on a 3 vs 1 match one offenense could just pin the defender and the other 2 offense would have a field day.

The 3 on3 idea would be nice but you can still have some fun with it. What if you could 'tag' the third bot and take your bot out of play and put theres in. This could be as simple as 3 bots on the field for each team, 2 start activated a third is dead, every team is equiped with a 2001esk kill switch, when 1 of the active teams killed there bot the 3rd bot would activate. Or to make it more complex have an area dedicated to this 'tag'. This would give you the benefit of 6 bots but since only 4 could move it would be less 'busy' out there. Also if a bot were to throw a chain, tip over, or otherwise die you would have imediate backup (the reason alliance have always had the extra bot).

I enjoyed the freedome FIRST gave us there in the starting positions and hope its carried to next year. I'm not a fan of humans on the field to start, I prefer the oldschool human plays during the match.

As for fun thing to manipulate, noodles(the foam pool toys) would be great. Maybe road cones.

As for an obstacle, the rollers they have at factories and warehouses to slide boxes on. The passive ones not the powered. They would be fairly cheap and depending on there size also mobile. Plus they would be a major challange to get over.

Yeah they would be nice obstacles if you wanted no one to get over them.:D The car industry uses passive rollers to test there cars on without having them move. The robots would be spinning there wheels in vain.

What stairs are cheap especially if your in a two story school. Your bound to find something that resembles staris without having to build them.

Capture the flag with 1/2 the time being autonomous mode!

Few more comments...

About the unbalanced team idea - it seems like something cool, but I don't know if it would work.

2 vs 1 means only 3 'bots per round and at the bigger regionals, that would result in a lot less matches played. Personally, I'd rather have more matches - if we spend 6 hard weeks, I'd want to play with the bot as much as possible.

3 vs 1 I think is the worse. First, it would be a bit TOO unbalanced unless the defending bot had a REALLY big advantage. Then there's the fact that two offensive 'bots could easily pin the lone defending bot, letting the third offensive bot have a field day. There's also the fact that if the defender fails for some reason, not two but THREE teams get to do whatever they want and have pretty much total control over the rest of the match (in the past two years, two teams only got to do what they wanted if two other teams failed). This could lead to some unfair advantages.

3 vs 2 I think is the best compromise on all these issues, except for the fact that it might be a bit crowded. But then again - like it was mentioned before, the field this year only seemed crowded because of all the boxes. I'm not sure what effect the introduction of a 5th bot would have on overall gameplay, but I think this would be the best way. However, the IFI controller would have to be tweaked to allow more than four competition channels (atleast I think it has only four competition channels this year).

Finally, 6 bots or more I think is a bit too many bots on the field at one time.

One also has to consider if, say, it was 3 vs 2, would the size of the final alliances be upped to four?

Long story short, although I like the idea of unbalanced alliances as something new, well, I thought this year's game would be something fun, but if we would have thought hard about it, we would have realized it was nothing more than a pushing war.
===========

And about the veterans getting together to discuss the game... part of the balance is the fact that ALL teams find out the rules at the same time. Maybe I misunderstood you, but I wouldn't be a big fan of the more expierienced teams getting even a 1-week's head start on the design just because they're more expierienced (actually, ESPECIALLY because they're more expierienced).

My idea-
A game with four robots but-
there are no official alliances. There are two sections.
Winning section teams get their score multiplied by 1/50 of the opposite section's score. A robot must be in a section for that section to have a score (no 4 on 0)This is cool because you can win by losing and lose by winning(or win by winning and lose by losing). Points would need to be more difficult to undo, this year it was just too easy to descore.

Another thing that would be awesome- you might see three on ones. Or shifting alliances.

That would be... extremely challenging. It would require a much greater focus on sensors and some pretty complex AI. Now, I'd love some (or a lot) of better sensors and the programmer inside of me would love a challenge (although I'd definitely want something better than PBASIC... gah...), but a game such as this would be difficult for a rookie team that doesn't know much about programming. That's why I doubt autonomous would be that long, although it may get more complex to promote sensor use. It will probably still come at the beginning of the game, and can still decide a major part of it.

Also, earlier there was discussion about the big points given to getting the goals or getting on top of the ramp and the relatively few points given to ball manipulation or stacking. I'm pretty sure that this is so because FIRST doesn't want to leave teams out. After all, building a robot is *not* easy. Some teams, rookie and veteran alike, may be short of funds, or time, or mentors, or luck, and the best they can come up with is a box on wheels (still a marvelous accomplishment). FIRST doesn't want to exclude them after they paid upward of $5000 to enter. Hence, a large portion of the points can be accrued by a simple box on wheels, either by pushing goals into position or plowing onto the top of the ramp, so they aren't left out of the experience. It promotes the entrance of rookie teams and gives even them a chance to win.

I think specialized functions could be better promoted if they lower the worth of KotH-type points by a little (15/20 instead of 25). Even if they don't, specialized bots can still get picked as an alliance partner for elimination rounds or win a technical award. And beyond that, remember the goal of FIRST is not just to build robots, but to build people and ideas. Sure, it'd be great to win, but I would still feel awesome if I know my team worked as hard as it could to make something cool. And if you really did that well, I'm betting that you would be recognized at least by the other teams at your regional, if not also by people here on CD.

And now that I've gone sufficiently off topic, I'll be quiet and return you to your regularly scheduled game predictions :) .

at sacramento this year there were only 27 teams. if there were 8 alliances of 4, and there were only 27 teams, the last 5 teams would only have three teams on them.

not that that's BAD, necessarily, but... whatever. haha.

Stairs... not likely. It's too big an obstacle for alot of teams.
Perhaps a small wall w/ a beam over it to lift up and over, kinda like 2000...
Though I'm still not sure.
Basically, I think First will find another common-day object, and based on what you can do with it, frame another zone-scoring like game.
You never know, they may have something incredibly different up their sleeves.
I should post my game idea, "Column Crisis" up here...
I didn't get to submit it to First due to time issues...
Anyway....
I doubt stairs... It'd be fun though!
I hope that if they do have another field obstacle, that it will be solid, rather than the mesh from this year...mainly for a few (crazy) ideas I've come up with...
:D

2004 - 3 vs 3 on an octogon field. that would be completely new and then you should be able to have a 4 team alliance for finals, allow more teams to play or just have 3 team allainces and if one team breaks down....they break down and you deal with it. having 3 teams would allow them to put a much harder task in the game and would probably encourage teams to make really big 'wing' robots like the ones that started showing up last year, and more frequently this year. as for the actual game its self, they deffinately have to have some type of moving field object, maybe similar to the huge puck of 99. i don't particularly like the ramp because it gives too much of a disadvantage to the teams driving on the opponents side

intresting idea

i think that doing it as a 3 on 3 with each alliance only having 2 active bots at a time woud be cool, or perhaps 1 active bot at a time. It would make for an interesting game.

I think that FIRST should go back to what they did in 2001 for alliance parings. They grouped 12 bots together for a group of 3 matches, and you didn't find out which 3 you were with until 2 minutes before. It made strategy interesting. I dont like knowing exactly who my alliance partner/ opposing alliance is at the start of the day. It takes some of the fun out of it, and the surprise.

I like the idea of capture the flag. Here's the way I would set it up. Divide the field in two zones. Matches would be 2v2. Human players would be given an object at the beginning of the match, and would be allowed to place it anywhere on the field (Two objects per alliance). This object should be awkward to manipulate (think something that you can't just push and effectively move it). There could be a autonomous period at the beginning of the match, say 10 seconds. The match lasts two minutes, or however long it takes for a robot to capture both objects.. Whichever team gets both objects on their side of the field first wins. During play, if your robot gets "tagged" on the other side of the field, you are disabled for some period of time (5-10 seconds). At the end of two minutes, if neither team captures both objects, then whoever has more, wins, and if they have the same number, the team who got "tagged" the least. There would be also be a multiplier at time intervals for capturing both objects, like 2001. For QP's, the winner gets a set number of points for each object (100) times the multiplier (if any), minus a penalty (5 pts) for each time a member of their team was "tagged." Losers would get a set number of points for each object divided my the other teams multiplier plus a bonus for the # of times they tagged the other team.

This game would accomplish a few things. First, it would eliminate this "battle-bots" style that we are beginning to see grow each year. It would also force teams to design an effective way to manipulate this object. We would also move from the "brute force" aspect of the game. So...what do you guys think?

I would like to see variable autonomous times.

Here goes:
The human player determines the amount of autonomous time somehow, maybe by hitting switches, in addition to their ordinary job.
Or the drive team could just have a switch to turn autonomous off, take your pick.
Minimum = 15 seconds.
No multiplier points are given for this amount of time. Any time less than 30 is given this auton point multiplier

Double auton = 30 seconds
Doubles your points at the end of the match. Any time less than 45 is given this point multiplier.

Triple auton = 45 seconds
Triples your points. Any time greater than or equal to 45 gets this multiplier.

edit\
please read this, Dave Lavery!
Autonomous is fun!
end edit\

What if FIRST went w/ a larger field next year.. and it was 3 vs. 3? Now that would be interesting...

I'd like to see the thing that they did in 2001, where if you stopped the clock w/ enough time on it, you'd get a multiplier.

Hmm .. stairs would be interesting, but unlikely. I don't think the ramps are going to go away completely, or the bars, but I doubt they'll be in next year's game.

I don't know.... seems like just the opposite to me. One of the problems this year was that the boxes were TOO hard to manipulate and that resulted in lots of time involved in getting a stack as opposed to half a second to knock it down... if you want to use an object that's difficult to manipulate, I'm just afraid that people will do just the OPPOSITE of what you want them to do, like in this game. Although this seems like fun, I think the game you describe would EMPHASIZE the brute-force aspect. This year, I think the game was designed so that teams would go for the stacking aspect - just the opposite happened - teams went for the easiest push-shove designs. Personally, I think in a Capture-the-flag type game, the winning bots would be the ones that are the most physically powerful, or atleast that's how I'd design a bot.

I don't know to tell you the truth. Unlike alot of people I've talked to, I liked this years game alot. Granted, the full potential of the game was not maxed out, however I still like the concepts behind it. As for going back to all four teams working together like in '01, I'm against that as well. Those matches weren't really exciting as as someone mentioned, the teams were more like going to work than competing. As for the match 'riggings', what are you gonna do about it? Granted, I also think its a stupid thing to do, but how are you going to tell people 'don't do that, its not right'.

I would love to see the bins return next year and for FIRST to maintain the 2 vs 2 format for alliances, or even go crazy next year and try for a 3 v 3 type game. Maybe bins with the balancing ramp from '01...... :D

You know that would be an interesting game. If somehow first could find a way to incorporate the 2001's game and this years. With the one minor change being it will be 2 vs 2 and not 4 all together on the alliances. If not that then maybe they could take something from each year, the puck for example, the balancing of the goals, the bins and much more and put them all together in one game. Yet I think that would be to much and to complicated. I personally loved this years game, it was a nice change away from the goals and all the balls.

I would love to see FIRST try a relay race with four lanes each for alliances of four teams through an obstacle course having to carry a bowling pin throughout.

2 vs 0 vs 2 vs 0
 

I think a lot of folks missed many of the subtleties of the 2001 game. It was my favorite game and maybe someday I will write a white paper with my thoughts on it.

How about splitting the field in half and have two alliances 2 vs 0 going on simultaneously and competing with each other. It could be a complex problem requiring good cooperation between the 2 robots and maybe have a sliding time factor figuring in the scoring. It would be sort of head to head but the two alliances do not come into contact with each other. I haven't thought this trough, but I throw it out there as a brainstorm idea.

Regards

FIRST has come into liking the "walking" like robots, where they would beable to walk up stairs, and also look at many teams have made "homemade segways" so what if we were required to build a robot that needed gyros or only 2 wheels? Also dont really count on a whole new field, we may get a new device in the middle or somewheres on theres like the ramp was this year. the field has been reused for a few years now due to the outside and everything total cost of more then $1 million for all the fields that FIRST builds.

~Dez

a few rumors-

comment from Dave Lavery-- stairs

comments to us for our contest submission- clowns


Does this mean clowns on stairs?

Hmmmmm.....

How about this thrown into the works make autonomous mode the last 15 seconds of the game lol.... I bet i can hear the programers moaning now. It would make you start using the refeltive tape that first has been trying to put into the game.

this year was great. there was massive amounts of excitement and i got into it really excessively...in a fun way.

my parents said it was awesome and it was easy to follow once you got the rules down pat...2 minutes is enough time....and they usually never got very excited about games or anything. they would just sit their quitely and cheer politely. NOT FOR ROBOTICS!
they were screaming their heads off and even ready to go after the refs a few times....i have never seen them get that parenting rage thing when their kids don't do well....i had to hold them back and they were about to send a letter to certain people before i stopped them and got them to cool down....


yes this style is great fun and very competitive. you get into it really well.

A few ideas from a novice FIRST'er (2 years)
1. The autonomous mode will stay and may increase as the game/years goes on. This forces programmers and builder/designers to work together (team building).

2. If the 2x2 format stays then the idea could be that each team member must do a particular job in autonomous mode before the "game" can begin. This could include moving, stacking, grasping, climbing, etc. Unless and until both teams completed the initial "task" the alliance is moot ( I can hear the screaming now).

3. Provide multiple problems within a game (on one side of the field) for 30-60 seconds (more autonomous mode) and then allow some sort of inter-alliance competition for the last 60-90 seconds (human play)

Just my thoughts. No offense intended or implied to any other poster or team.

:yikes:

Next year...
 

I would like to see the qualifying points be the difference in scores between the winner and the loser. If you win 50 to 40, you get 10 points. If you win 20 to 10, you get 10 points.

The idea would be to encourage defense as well as offence, and do a way with any reason for opponents to make agreements.

True, that would give the loser a negative score but if that was a problem, each team could start out with 10000.

In the elimination rounds, I would definitely prefer going back to best 2 out of 3, although the above scoring system would help to make the second match more interesting.

True, experienced teams would then be obliged to get massive scores and new teams would have a rough time. However I prefer seeing the true relative strengths of the opponents as opposed to giving points to the other team. We can help equalize things for newer teams by giving them some better drive system components with different gearing choices, etc. This year's drill motor mounts and gear boxes were a step in that direction.

Hopefully FIRST will come up with a game with 3 or 4 of viable ways of getting points, so that the winning strategy isn't obvious. For example, I think this year's game would have been improved if it was harder to knock down the stacks created by robots. Maybe there could have been alcoves that robots could put their stacks in, but not human players.

Well, I have a few thoughts...
If the game was 3 vs 3...and I'd like to play a 3v3 game :D , then it's time for First to enlarge the field. I think one issue this year was that the field turned out to be smaller than expected w/ the ramp in place (I know the field is about the same size as last year).
If we were going to do 3v3, then that would result in an IFI control system update, because more operating channels would be needed.
I do like the idea of disabling bots for a short amount of time during the game, but it probably would have to be limited to a certain amount of times for each alliance, and have a delay between when you could use them, so the game wasn't just bots sitting there the whole time. :yikes:
I doubt the bins are here to stay guys, sorry.
The main reason they were used was for their stacking capability, and I highly doubt next year's game will involve stacking again, after seeing what happened this year.
I also think it might be a cool idea for first to scrap the QP score method, and just make your total score the QP. This would intensify the game play, and would make it easier for teams who are playing to know who's going to win, and about how many QP's they'll get. It's just too tricky to balance out a good score that easily during a match.
I think that if the game was fast-paced, where the score could easily shift from one alliance to the next, and the total score was your QP's (for both alliances) then the game would always be very interesting to watch, and play.

It's A LOT harder than it looks to do what you're saying. Many forget, but FIRST did try a stair type object in 99. It was the puck. Just the stair moved which made the game even cooler!

Our team was the only team that year, to my knowledge from all the 300+- teams I saw at nationals that actually pulled off this triwheel design. We only had them on the front wheels though. It took most of our design and building time just to build them and since there was more materials, wheels and more sprockets that went into creating that, it obviously cost more than a regular drive.

Stairs that move again, that'd be really cool thing for FIRST to do. :)

What about something like an airplane staircase? Just a set of stairs on wheels... now that would be an interesting challenge. Maybe move the staircase so you can get up to the top of a raised platform?

I don't know... with all the problems of fixing scores this year, I think this situation would make things worse....

"psst... hey buddy.... what say your team and my team work together in round 43 where we're up against each other.... this way, both of us get quite a few QP's and there's no need to be too concerned with the winner - the winner's going to get only slightly more points than the loser now that we've gotten away with that pesky 2x the losers score. C'mon, this year you really have nothing to lose! By working together instead of competing, you're sure to increase your rank even if you lose, cause whoever wins is going to get only slightly more points!"

Basically, I like the your-points-plus-2x-the-loser's points - that atleast SOME competition between teams. Without this, I think the problems of this year will just be worsened next year.

heres what we should have
 

frisbees

something other than the 2 v 2 format

different shape field

stairs

2 out of 3 eliminations format

i liked that earlier idea someone mentioned about using moblie stairs you have to move around to get to higher platforms

QPs = raw score

Re: heres what we should have
 

FURY's game design involved Frisbees. It was called Frisbee Frenzy. It also featured a large maze in the center that the drivers couldn't see into. I've attached the description for anyone interested in reading it.

I did.

It is!


-dave

Obsticle course
 

Imagine an obsitle course created from something cheap and low like 4x4 timbers. There would be some sort of goal to the game besides getting througt the course. Teams could use sensors or dead reconing to get throught the course in an early autonomous mode or simply drive over the obsticles.

Obviously this is not a complete game, just a concept.

MattB

Re: Next year...
 

I really like that idea. I think it would be a lot of fun. a little more competative.

The problem with the difference being the winners score is that it encourages slaugters. The problem is FIRST wants close matches and no slauters that why you get part of your opponents score if you win, however the side issue is this causes collusion. It would be worse than raw score. Imagine the same match scored different ways.

Raw Score ..................... 50 - 40 ---> QP 50 - 40
Each teams plays there own game with some defense.

Difference ..................... 50 - 40 ---> QP 10 - -40
Each team would destroy the opposing alliances score the winner would want there opponents to score zero to maximize theres and the loser would want to kill the winners to minize there loss.

Current Method ............. 50 - 40 ---> QP 130 - 40
Each team trys to score as high as possible and collusion is a problem. Defense is played to prevent scoring.

My idea .......................... 50 - 40 ---> QP 90 - 45
Winner gets the total of all points scored, loser gets half. This would also suffer from collusion. The interesting part is a match of 60 - 30 would have the same QP. So you wouldn't even have to score points for your opponent to help them. And matches are close because the loser actually gets a higher QP than he would normally get.

I'd like to see autonomous mode stay next year, maybe be extended to 20 seconds. The problem of having it at the end would be so many teams had no auto mode this year. That the 1:40 mark would end up being the effective end of the match for most teams.

I would like to see more replicated field parts, that are portable, like Zone Zeal's goals, and not like this year's central ramp structure. If your bot was a drivetrain bot last year, you didn't have to build anything. If it moved balls, you bought soccer balls. If it captured a goal or two, you built goals.

This year, unless your bot was meant ONLY to go under the bar (or stay on the opposing side) you had to test it on a ramp structure, which wasn't TOO hard, but factor in the wire mesh and the HDPE, and that's a steep testing field cost.

allright, I finally have a small idea that I'd like to share, so let me know what you think.

the 4 on 2 thing wouldn't work because how would the finals work, it has to be a standard game every time. But I would personally like a 3 on 3 game, any more than that and it gets to crowded. But what would be really sweet is a game like football or soccer. Similar to rug rage (I think that was the second year's game). Except I'd leave it up to first to make some interesting twists. (Obstacles, etc.) I would however have this function.

Each team would be allowed 2 ROBOTS. That's right 2!!! By using the soccer idea, One would be able to switch their robot out if they wanted to, by driving it over a speed-bump or some other designated area. When the robot went into that area, another would be allowed to come out. SOrt of naving an offense and defense robot if you needed it. This could be ammended by having a 4 on 4 or 5 on 5 alliance, and by letting only 1 or 2 robots from an alliance on the field at 1 time. You would be able to let certain robots switch out throughout the match. Kinda like hockey.

Personally I'd just like to see a game like soccer, with robots that shoot and have to play goalies and defense, It would allow for much greater strategy.

I like the 2v2 format and I think that the automonous part of the match should somehow be reincorporated into next years game. However, I didnt like how the game was set up this year. It emphasized too much on hard hitting (robots, bins, etc) rather than the finesse I thought I would be seeing (stacking). Although I dont have an idea for next years game, I would like to see something that makes teams think and not just build a drivetrain and go around and hit things.

I mentioned this in another thread, but since it has become the predominant discussion in this one, I thought I would mention it again.

The ultimate scoring system would be one that discourages both all-out slaughters by one team, and also collusion.

What could possibly provide this? It's quite simple: go back to the way nearly every sporting event does scoring. Base it on winning instead of points as the main factor for ranking.

The initial problem for this is that it still allows for one team to win while destroying the other team's score.

This is solved through a tie-breaking format. If rankings are determined by the W/L column, at every event, there will be many teams tied for the same ranking, as there are limited amount of matches (for example, 4 teams may be undefeated by the end of the competition). To break the tie, use a system similar to the 2002 game, where whoever has ALLOWED their opposing alliances to score the most points is ranked higher.

In this situation, collusions are useless, since the main thing that matters is winning. However, teams are not encouraged to destroy everything their opponents have, as these points are what will eventually determine their exact rank later.

Yeah, I can see your point.
My QP method probably isn't too good of an idea.
But basically what I'm saying is, FIRST should try and come up with a driver-friendly QP scoring method.
It's just too tricky when your'e driving within a 2:00 or 1:45 time frame, and focused on a task, to figure out how to level the score out to increase your QP's.
Also, it was difficult in this years game to shift points from one alliance to the next; most of the time, you just removed bins from the scoring area unstead of taking them over to your side.
I think Zone Zeal had a good format in that it was fairly easy for teams to transfer the points back and forth between alliances.
It made a good battle for points.

Ramblings from a rookie
 

I don't think that just because I've experienced one competition...and won so cal regional...:D I now know exactly what the perfect game is but here are some things I really want to see in the future:

Hex field: this would complement the 3 vs 3 aliance pairing. Also there is no need to change the elimination alliances. If one robot breaks, u r just at an disavantage.

I like the scoring zone idea, and each zone would be alternating around the hexagon.

Robots start in autonomous in YOUR zone.

In the center of the field there is a raised hexagonal platform, like this year ramp, where a robot may have to climb, go up stairs, or ramps, depending on which zone they are in.

I like the king of the hill idea, but it was worth way too much this year, they would have to have a better award for it, maybe a max of 3x multiplier if u have all 3 robots on top. Giving flat points for the ramp this year made it so the entire game a pushing match on top.

I think that the win/lose system is much better than points...with opponents points being deciding factors between tie breakers...(thanks Koci)

Also more human player involment sounds like it would be a good idea.

Now for the scoring objects, or obstacles, I am not sure about, but maybe each object can have your aliances colors on it, and you score only when you put it in the other teams scoring zone...sounds almost like chinese checkers...

Just a few ideas I dreamt up on the plane ride home... comments really appreciated!

oo I just had an Idea...

It'd be cool if we had to throw something through something else to score points, such as possibly shooting frisbee-like discs through a large vertical ring, or throwing small balls through a ring.

I was thinking along the similar lines. One great thing about a game with one ball is that it is TV/video friendly since a camera can easily follow the action. The challenge is to make it exciting. I think that one of the things that makes soccer, football or basketball exciting is the idea of team members passing the ball to each other, and the other team trying to intercept the pass. We could have robots shooting or boucing the ball to each other, or attempting to "dribble" it down the field.

The other thing I would like to see in a game is multiple ways of scoring, so the game is less predictable. I think it was unfortunate this year that being on the ramp at the end greatly overshadowed making stacks.

I think one cool way to add multiple scoring methods with a single-ball game would be to have goals as in soccer but also hoops as in basketball. Teams could go for a basic robot that could push a ball into the soccer goal or for a basket shooting robot. This would then call for robots that could block ground shots and hoop shots.

Autonomous could be a rush to get the ball in the middle. There could even be a ramp in the middle, which adds to the challenge for teams building tall robots, since they risk tipping on the ramp.

We would want to have high walls and a net over the playing field to prevent the ball from going out of bounds.

Human players could be responsible for putting the ball back into play after a goal.

Also I think we would have to have rules against a robot pulling the ball inside itself.

Any other ideas on how to make a single-ball game exciting?

Hey there's an idea.

(for you veterans who have discussed this topic many times before)

Basketball !!!

Two words: m-e-d-i-a f-r-i-e-n-d-l-y

That should be our "prime directive" for all future games. - to make the game media-friendly (or... again... for you old-timers, our "prive" directive)

heh... sorry to go over so many newer member's heads on this, but it is funny, really. If you want more info on this idea, look at this thread:

Prive directive thread from 2001

Andy B.

The problem you'd have with a projectile-based game is spectator safety. The smaller and heavier the projectile, the more risk there is to the audience, if something goes wrong.

It all really depends on how the game is set up, but I have my doubts about next season's game being based on projectiles.

This is not to say that they can't play a part in the game, just look at 2002's game.

I think one of the reasons for a Qualifying Point System was so that very dominant teams couldn't just coast through a match where it was obvious after 10 seconds that they were going to win. It then gets boring for everyone to watch.

That is part of the reason why I came up with the idea of basing qualifying points on the scoring gap. Even if you are ahead by 10 points, you would still be trying to improve your score.

True, that encourages "all-out slaughters" by better teams. I think the way to get around that is to give new teams components that makes them competitive. This year, we saw a lot of rookie teams doing very well. That could be enhanced even further.

There is something to be said for "letting the chips fall where they lay", by which I mean allowing teams to see where their robot really stands. True they might feel badly if they lose by a lot, but I doubt if it would be worse than seeing their robot laying on its back for the whole match as sometimes occurred this year.

Let's make it a genuine competition and never mind faking it to try to avoid one team dominating another. If our team gets dominated, then we will be making changes so it doesn't happen the next time.

The drive train is the most critical part of making a robot competitive. If new teams have good drive train components (enhanced versions of this year's gear boxes and motor mounts) with a choice of gearing, they will be competitive. Then if we build multiple levels into the game, they will be able to contribute to their alliance.

Also there are other ways to give an advantage to basic robots. Going under the bar this year was easy for robots that were low, such as those that weren't stacking. That advantage helped the rookie teams.

We were rookies last year, and personally, it would have been an insult to us to know that we were being given points because we were lousy. I would much rather have a team just play their best against us and the score be the real score.

That is the way it is in any competition that I have ever seen. You do your best. And if you lose, you work on improving.

In short, let's get real, and never mind any pretense. And if the rookies have trouble competing, improve the kit and change the basic game elements. But let's have the score be the real score.

Didn't those projectiles and the real time scoring really screw up the game a couple years back when a team just held the ball in place and moved it in and out of the goal really fast? I don't remember the year, but i've heard about all the probblems caused.

Well the "projectiles" wouldn't necessarily have to be balls. I know at one point one of the games contained "floppies"... something of that manner could be used, like a frisbee of some kind.

Don't defend the drivetrain FIRST supplied us with, we're a 4th year team with decent facilities and financing, and we didn't move well till the second day of the second regional. If FIRST wan'ts to even it out a bit, give us gearsets for 4 motor drives made out of metal; the one this year was weak (both in power and in construction).

I agree that these should be improved upon. That's why I said "enhanced versions of this year's gear boxes" and "with a choice of gearing". We can keep enhancing them until they work.

(We used the drill motor mounts for our telescoping arm and it did fine.)

Last year, the kit didn't include any motor mounts or gearing sets. I applaud FIRST for moving in that direction this year. I think that is the best way to balance the game for new teams, as opposed to using the scoring system to do so.

I've got a field in the works with Walls, Stairs, a Pyramid and the Big balls from 2002 hehehe, Now only if I knew Adobe so I could draw it better... Stupid Paint

my idea i came up with was

2 v 1 setup
PLAYING FIELD
rectangular field
at one end are the blue bots (with blue drivers stations behind them)
red bot at other end (with the red driver station behind them)
on red side is something similar to a soccer goal (imagin a 3ft tall box with the side facing the blue end open) spanning the width of the field. On top is a another goal, but shorter in width. There would be a line 10ft from the edge of the goal. Blue bots may not drive beyond (so they may have arms that extend into the red zone)

IN the blue zone are a bunch of frisbees, yes, frisbees. The blue bots basically have to get the firsbees in the goals. They must either do this by launching them or using a long arm, as ble bot cant touch the field floor beyond that line.

scoring
BLUE ALLIANCE
2 points for each frisbee in the lower red goal
4 points for each one in the top one
10 points for each robot positioned wholy within the starting square they started in
(HP frisbees in goals are worth an extra point each)

RED TEAM
3 ponts for each frisbee not in one of their goals
15 points for having their robot wholy within its starting square
(HP firsbees not in goal are worth an extra point each)

PROS: modularity is a key aspect, as you have to b ale to do both offense and defense positions.

SPECTATOR FRIENDLY: like 1 sided soccer, but with frisbees

HUMAN PLAYERS: they would only be on the blue alliance located in postions next to the blue driver stations. HPs would try to get the firsbees the start with in the goals

only thing i cant think of is incorpertating autonomy. Perhaps it would be used at the end of the match. AT the switch to auto mode robots would not be allowed in their start zones and the auto program would have to get them back. Thats all i could think of
i'll load a field drawing soon

sounds like one crazy competition

it would be fun to watch, sounds like a good base plan to start building up more rules, regulations, and strategic aspects

anyone else to build off this?

ByE

erin

Here to stay??
 

I was wondering this is the first year that FIRST has taken a brake from Balls in what...3 seasons or so.... What do they give us, boxes. What was going through my head is, do you think FIRST is going to stay with the boxes for another year or so?? I mean they could, all they would need to do is make the game to suit them. Example, we had the balls going on for a while and each year and game was made for them. It might be alittle bit more complex due to the fact that the boxes are alittle harder to manipulate...well at least to me.

The problem with overly complex fields is expense. Teams in the past didn't like having to spend a huge amount o build there field. Also many teams don't have room for a huge field. Thats why about 4 years ago first "standardized" a rectangular field. The size was small enough to fit in many rooms while large enough to still be fun. The field is relatively simple and can be made for little money. Having a hex field would require much more psace for teams to build an area.

Actually most sports use a subjective panel to rank teams. Normally commentators or coaches rank teams according to wins/looses, scores, opponents they've faced. A team who's record was 3 and 3 and lost 3 to the best bots in the game may be better than a 6 and 0 team who won because of poor opponents. There is far to little of a judging staff to sit down and rank teams.

This also brings up another point. All the recent games have been "end scored" rather than scored during the match. The reason is judges must look for penalties and fouls rather than keep track of score.

I used to be in the robot-basketball club. But do you really think FIRST wants the headline to read "robots play basketball"? The game would have to be changed amlot to, will there be a shot clock? what about out of bounds? is there goaltending? what will happen to the ball after a shot is made? Trying to mod a sport to play would be a disaster and wouldn't even look like original sport when finsihed.

I'll continue this with basketball. We'll stay with a 2v2 game. The field is from 2002. There is a large structure at the center of each human station wall. It has a central opening of 1 foot in diamter and an outring 3 ft in diameter. Both cylindres are 6ft tall. There are 12 balls on each side of the field and another 12 in each human play station. Getting a ball in the inner ring is worth 3pts and in the outer is 1. Anyone who has been around FIRST for a while knows some teams can collect balls as fast as they move(8ft/s). So in a finals match the balls may be all scored quickly. Bots may adapt a goaltending design in whcih they block making it almost impossibel to score on them. The basketball-esk game is endscores(FIRST requirement). But its boring and has the possibility to end withina 30 seconds with some really fast teams out there. Beyond that it barely resembles basketball. Human sports are scored during play and last about an hour while FIRST games are end-scored and last 2 minuts. My conclusion FIRSTifying a human sport is nearly impossible.

My thoughts on the 2004 game:
1) The totes are gone. Did you see how many of those things we burned through at nationals? I saw a bunch of the crew working assembly line style to keep those things plentiful.

2) I would love to see an asymmetrical field. Lets REALLY screw with the programmers heads during auto!

3) While we're on assymetry, what if the field parts actually change position after each match? (i.e. the tunnel changes places with the ball basket or something?)

4) Ok, we've seen circles (balls) and sqaures (well, rectangles in the totes), and so, it seems that the next logical step is triangles! Yessirree, triangles. It would be a huge pain to design something to grasp a triangular prism, so putting them in a box somewhere or something would be big points.

5) I like that if your robot ends in a specific zone you get points for it, its incentive to leave other points undefended. What I dont like is four robots all trying to get onto a platform just barely big enough. I think that was what made this game so physical, more than anything else : fighting for the top of the ramp. So either a larger robot home zone or seperate zones.

6) Several challenges a robot can perform: Lets get more diversity among robots! Granted, several teams come up with unique robots, but overall there are distinct trends in construction. With more than one challenge, robots would be geared towards 2 or 3, and based on how teams prioritize the challenges you would get a much wider range of design.

7) At least one of the challenges should include some kind of fine manipulation: place the prism on the small shelf 6 feet in the air, or something

8) Scoring: Overall, I think that the scoring system this year worked well up until the elimination rounds, and the only problem there was that with only 2 rounds, one round is entirely too important. I would suggest going to 3 rounds.

All that said, let me tell you that these came right off the top of my head, and I'm sure there are flaws. bonus points if you can tell me where I'm wrong!

Traffic cones!

...oh yeah, and clowns on stairs.

-dave

Here's my idea for a new game. It incorporates alot of the things that the FIRST community wants in a game (more HP involvement, continued autonomous mode, stairs, different game pieces). I call it:

Capture the Noodle

Here's the 30 second explaination. Each alliance has a goal on their side of the field. They get points for the noodles they have in their goal at the end of the match. They also get points for their bot being in their home zone at the end of the match. Finally, an alliance can multiply it's score by raising noodles into the air at the end of the match.

Now, how about some details?

------------------------
|...|.......|......|......|...|
|...|.......|____|......|...|
|R.|..O.....____...O..|B.|
|...|.......|......|......|...|
|...|.......|......|......|...|
------------------------

That's the best drawing I can do of the field. Time to explain. The two O's are the goals, each only about 3' high. The zones at the far ends are the scoring zones for each alliance. R means red, B means blue. there are two 6" high raised platforms (stairs, if you will) with a 4' alley in between. Human players are in zones positioned like in this year's game.

Each alliance starts with 5 of it's noodles in it's goal and with 3 at each HP station. 8 neutral noodles are also scattered on the stairs; 4 are on each.

Since the easiest task here will be defending your own noodles, an alliance only gets 1 point for each of their own color noodles in their goal. The neutral noodles should be next easiest to score, so they are worth 2 points each. The toughest noodles to score would be the opponent's, so those are worth 3 points. Each of the alliance's robots is worth 5 points if it is in it's own zone at the end of the match. Finally, you get an (n+1) multiplier for each of your noodles raised 8 feet in the air at the end of the match. If one of your noodles are raised, you get your score doubled. Two noodles raised triples your score. And so on...

The QP system will stay the same as this year. There are 15 seconds of autonomy at the beginning of the match followed by 2 full minutes of human control.

I see many interesting strategies emerging from this game. Teams who can't climb the stairs easily will have to negotiate a nifty little bottle neck in the middle of the field. I can see situations where a team would raise an opponent's noodles in the air to maximize their QP. And just handling noodles in the first place will pose quite a design challenge for teams.

Any and all feedback is welcome as always!

Everyone enjoy the off season. Less than 9 months 'till kickoff!

I'd like to see a return to an idea back in 2001. The challenge of moving 2 different objects. True they were both balls but they grippers had to be dual function. How about traffic cones AND noodles. The only issue with cones would be they are surprisingly heavy. The small ones for tag football would be nice though.

Too bad we all have to wait 8 months to find out what gonna happen.

I agree. I would take a different approach: creating a FIRST competition from scratch and only using human sports for inspiration. The idea is to make our competitions friendly to TV and Video audiences, which among other things, would help our fundraising efforts when we present a video of FIRST competitions to a corporate executive.

All the really popular human sports: soccer, baseball, football, basketball and even lacrosse involve a single ball, and hockey has a single puck. Why? The ball (or puck) provides a focus for the game. Everyone including the cameraman knows where to look. It is spectator friendly because you don't have to look in 4 areas at once. Everytime I watch a video of a FIRST match, I miss some of the action because you can't see what every robot is doing. So what is the answer? We take a lesson from human sports and start with a single ball or playing object. People will intuitively understand the game, since they are used to a single ball being moved down field. True, one ball doesn't sound too exciting, so that is the challenge. Can we make an exciting FIRST competition with one ball? I don't know, but given all the examples in the sports world, I think it is worth considering.

No, a shot clock wouldn't work and neither would "out of bounds". We have to keep the action going, so we would want to have a net that rebounded the ball. To prevent goaltending, the goals could be a little higher than robots were allowed to be in their unfolded formation.

After a shot is made, the ball could roll down a shoot to a human player who would throw it back into play within so many seconds. (If QP were equal to the gap between the loser's score and the winner's, both teams would want to get the ball into the goal and also back into play as quickly as possible. See my earlier post on this idea.)

Since we are not modeling the game after basketball, let's add a soccer goal to make an alternative way for new teams to score. That goal would also channel the ball to the human player.

Let's add a ramp in the middle and a side bar as in this year's game and start with the ball sitting on the ramp. The first 15 seconds would be autonomous again.

Robots can pass a ball by "kicking" it or throwing it. Now we take a page from lacrosse: a robot cannot hide a ball inside itself. (In lacrosse, the players have a stick with a net and they aren't allowed to hold the ball in the net with their hands.) Instead they can carry the ball with a cup but it can't be more than (for examples sake) 2 inches deep. Now robot A has to angle its cup to carry the ball quickly, but robot B can bump A or hit A's arm and make the ball fall out.

So A passes the ball before B can bump him. A's partner can shoot a shot along the ground for 1 point or go for a basket in the hoop for 3 points. The ball then goes to a human player who throws the ball to B. B tries to get over a midfield ramp to get to the opponent's goals.

A is waiting and pushes B back down the ramp. A's partner goes under the bar and A passes the ball to him.

Hey, it needs polishing for sure, but one thing for sure, all cameras would be on the ball, and there would be a lot of robot interaction, passing, goal blocking, shot blocking, etc. I think it could be really cool.

Actually those drivetrains were great in my opinion. Of course I do know of ways to improve them for next year by making it easier to assemble. Get rid of the spacers and those things that held the stuff on the shaft. Replace it with shrew on shaft collars that actually compress onto the shaft without marring it. We were a third year team, I assembled the gearboxes with a couple problems, and we moved on the first try we turned the robot. Of course we faced other problems releated to the drivetrain but those were not First's fault.
Yeah I do not think First will be able to do that. I think it is impossible to have one gearbox that is designed to use more than one gear ratio in it (unless you drill extra holes) because of the way you need to space everything.

Hmm...
The capture the flag idea is kinda neat...
Maybe FIRST should have a part in the kit, like a flag mount.
This has to attain to certain regulations, mainly it would have to be on your bot, and must have so many inches of open area around it- yadda yadda.
Anyway, to score, the flag would have to be in the mount, and the bot in the zone or something like that.
Anyway, I'm basically thinking a part or parts in the kit that actually have to do with the game in some way...
I think that having alot of easily manipulatable objects should stick. The trick is, finding the next kind of manipulative object...
It probably should be something used in the real world quite well...
Hmm...
HMMMM....
When I think of a few things, I'll post them here.
(Time to take a trip down to walmart...):D

The main problem with having a single ball or object of interest in a game is the fact that there is more than one robot on the field. If all four robots (assuming there are four robots in a game) go for a single object, that just equals collisions. By spacing out the game, as FIRST has always done, it decreases these collisions. In fact, this past year already had something similar to a single object, with the top of the ramp worth so many points per robot, causing a pushing and shoving match. Just imagine what will happen when this 12' x 4' area becomes the size of a soccer ball.

Next year's game should use:

-Free AOL CDs as scoring items
-Clowns
-Stairs
-Moving Sidewalks
-PVC pipes
-Goo-Gone

:p

My game idea will be up soon. Trust me.

Hahaha now that's a good idea!! :D AOL CD's flying.. and breaking everywhere :)

That is a good point.

Basically that is what occurs often in beginner soccer games: all the kids rush for the ball.

However in games where there is a lot of passing, that doesn't happen, since many players rushing to the ball would leave a lot of opponents open to receive a pass. Maybe there is a way to encourage that aspect in our robotics match.

For one thing, robots could pass by hitting the ball or throwing it. We would probably have some robots with ball punchers, and others with ball catapults. The trick would be catching the ball or "trapping" it as per soccer. Not easy to do with a robot. Maybe using sails like Team 60's would help but the robot would have to funnel the ball into a "hand".

Like I said, the idea needs work, but it might be possible.

For a 2004 game…
Autonomous mode rules!
Stationary goals rule!
Scoring objects that don’t fill up the field when randomly dispersed rule!
Scoring objects that are uniform when at rest make more teams want to deal with them!
Ramps and bridges rule!
Limbo Bars rule!
Lifting mechanisms rule!

Thank God I’m not on the design committee.

For the 2004 game I want:
-Stairs! Please!
-Autonomous ending
-Balls or inner tubes, no boxes
-No massive 'king of the hill' score

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.