[Official 2005 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2005 game...
 

Okay, it has been three weeks since the FIRST Championships, and you have had some time to reflect on what worked about this year's game, and what didn't. And we know you are just sitting around thinking about next year's competition. There are already several discussions about what it might be like. Well, how about an opportunity to possibly influence the design of the competition for next year (and perhaps several years into the future)?

Several groups are working with and within FIRST to address various aspects of the challenge for next year's FRC competition. They are looking for good ideas, game concepts, rule suggestions, play field designs, etc - everything from a basic idea for a game to a set of detailed rules and parts drawings.

With that thought in mind, we would like to once again ask for your help and open a thread to discuss ideas, concepts, and specific suggestions for next year's game. What we are looking for here are specific, detailed ideas or suggestions about the design of the game for next year.

We have been through all the related CD threads posted to date. There is no need to re-hash the pros and cons of prior games, or get too deep into philosophical discussions about prior years. Please keep those comments going, and please provide feedback on the 2004 game at the Team Forums later this year. But please keep them in the relevant threads. Here, we want to figure out how to go forward and help build an exciting, challenging, stimulating and engaging competition for next year.

Here is what we can guarantee: EVERYTHING that you suggest will be read, discussed, and considered. Nothing will be ignored.

Here is what is not guaranteed: There is no promise that anything that is suggested will actually get used. For any of a number of reasons, the suggestions may be impractical, incompatible, or unimplementable, and would not be incorporated into future games.

So, here are the ground rules:
- The game should provide a sufficiently difficult challenge that it will stress the abilities of the students and engineers on the teams to design and build a solution.
- The game should allow active participation by teams with widely-varying levels of resources.
- The game should be audience friendly and presumably TV-friendly (i.e. you can explain the basics of game to a TV audience in 30 seconds or less, it is easy to follow and exciting for the audience, and visually interesting for the duration of the match).
- Any field elements must be able to be constructed from readily availably materials (ask yourself this question "can I buy all the parts at Home Depot or Builders Square?"). Field elements that can be disassembled into 4x8-foot (or smaller) units that stack against a wall for storage are encouraged; field elements that require seventeen people to move or a small house to store are discouraged.
- The game should embody the values represented by FIRST (i.e. brings out the best aspects of a competitive spirit, does not promote needless destruction or violence, celebrates creative and imaginative solutions).
- The game should be structured so that ingenuity of design is just as important (or even more so) than advanced fabrication.
- There are no assumptions about the need for two-team alliances, limiting each round to just four teams, play fields in a single plane, etc.
- There is a preference (but not a requirement) for robots to have both offensive and defensive roles in the game. There is a preference (but not a requirement) for a role for the human player.

Also, understand that we are soliciting ideas for more than just the game itself. We want to hear about different concepts for alternate technologies and capabilities that might be incorporated into (or removed from) the game, and the structure of the competitions themselves. We want ideas for all elements of the 2005 FRC. To help spark thinking and create a structure for focused discussion, four discussion threads are being created to start things off. These threads will include:

1. Game concepts - this thread is intended for fully developed game ideas. It is intended to collect specific game concepts, as well as be an opportunity to discuss and refine posted concepts. This discussion will take place in this thread (here).

2. Autonomous suggestions - a thread to present new ideas for autonomous elements in the game. While autonomy need not be a part of a specific game, creative uses of autonomy components in any game are sought. For example, a discussion may be presented that proposes the autonomous portion of the game be ______ (and we look forward to the many variations of filling in the blank). This discussion will take place here.

3. Game elements and subtasks – discussion of ideas for unique game elements and subtasks. If you don’t have a fully developed game, but have a great idea about a piece of a game, then this is the place to talk about it. As examples from the past, someone could use this thread to post a suggestion to use inner tubes as an element, or that balance should be included as a challenging subtask. Others can use those ideas as a creativity springboard to develop a game concept. This discussion will take place here.

4. Radical tournament structure changes - this thread is intended to collect innovative ways to structure tournament play. Using previous years as an example, this might include ideas to add human players to a robot-only format, or to change the three robots playing at once to a two-team alliance format. Like the above thread, this thread is meant to collect creative ideas that can be applied to any game concept. This discussion will take place here.

Understand that this will be a one-way valve for information (for a while at least). There will not be a formal response from FIRST regarding any of the ideas or concepts discussed here. If a suggestion is incorporated into the game, you will not receive any feedback or know about it until the game is revealed next year. If it is not incorporated, you may never hear why (because we may save any ideas not used in 2005 for future games).

If at any time during this year's competition you thought "if I had designed the game I would have done it like this..." then here is your chance! We know that if there is a single place to go for this sort of input, it will be this forum! Let us hear your thoughts.


- 2005 FIRST Game Design Committee
- FIRST Executive Advisory Board

Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2005 game...
 

I've never thought about game design before, but the other day I was stuck on it. Considering the past, I thought it can't use balls again, to have a hump year. I kinda liked 2002. So here's some of it, you can fill in the rest.
It uses the existing field. There are 3 objects, a plywood Triangle, Circle and Square hmmm. They're large enough to fit your 30x36x60 robot inside of. They're placed across the field like 2002's (3) goals were. The game is called Crazy Crates :-)
The usual format 2 on 2. The goal being to get under (inside of) these crates like the shell game. Also getting them into a field position (it would be funny seeing these emblems shuffling around the field internally powered). I didn't think of anything more than that sorry. I think adding another feature to take in there with you to up your score would be the bonus part. Maybe some Donuts? Being we have to extract the robot from the field after the match, this gives us incentive to hurry up. But I thought it (the first logo boxes) would be visually appealing...

Edit: Just thought maybe it could also be a 4 team effort to unshuffle the logo peices (which are randomly located) into there appropriate order and position, then the score bonus is what 3 of the 4 got inside the logo's.

Another Edit: OK I did a little more home work and here's the matches I envision.

First of all, simple is good!
- So this is a cooperation game like 2001, using the timer for multipliers.
- The logo pieces are randomly located "After" the robots are set on the field. This will help speed up reset, and eliminate the point and pray method.
-The center of the field has outlines of the logo pieces for the robots to relocate the logo's within the outlines
-Autonomous 15 sec' where the logo pieces have reflecitve tape in order to be located, near there handles. The logo pieces could also have I/R.
-The four teams work together to get 3 inside the boxes, and get them repositioned inside the field outlines. The fourth climbs on top of the center round piece to double the over all score. They do this as fast as possible to get time multipliers.
-The Boxes would be fairly heavy and hard to lift and get under without tipping them over. But they would have delrin skids so they could be pushed around easy.
-You can get points for just getting them into position without anyone inside. So this helps the rookies.
-Easy stuff to build, and a very asthetic match finally having a bot on top of and centered on the FIRST logo (makes for great photo ops)
-Sorry no Human players

Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2005 game...
 

BILLFRED'S 2004 IDEA: Clean Out The Backyard!

(Yes, we played this in elementary school. Yes, it steals from a few years. No, I would not want to do field reset for this game.)

The field du jour is of the same dimensions as this year's, perhaps a little shorter. Midfield are two sets of eight-inch steps per side--one step, then another--running about half of the length. The lower step would be lined with footballs. The remainder is a fence, kinda like 2k1. Paint or diamond plate to taste.

Autonomous mode would entail getting to a switch mounted on the fence on either side. Hit it before the other alliance does, and a slew of tennis balls dump onto their side of the field. (I imagine either a leaf blower on steroids or something like 33's system this year stuck inside the steps to hold all this. Just something simple.)

For the remainder of the time, you're trying to remove said tennis balls and footballs from your team's side of the field. Footballs, given their shape, count more than tennis balls--although they're far outnumbered. Assign the point value for a ball on their side, and then a bonus for being on the top step at the end.

Of course, if you really wanted to punish the programmers, you could always have one alliance member start on each side of the field.

Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2005 game...
 

2005 Game Submission

*NOTE* This was written off line in a word processing document, so sorry if anything is repeated. *END*

FIRST grows, FIRST is living, FIRST also to my intuition also loves to throw back at us what we least expect. All of these suggestions I’ve made should be déja vu for everyone, every element is based on a previous game, but there are a few new ideas and concepts to throw everyone off guard. Hopefully, my game is like fusion quisine, it uses common ideas in unconventional ways.

Here’s my fictitious Kick-Off idea scenario....

Dean: “Lets waste no more time, let’s reveal this year’s game.”
Woodie: “I agree Dean. When we designed this game, we intended for this game to be played by the most dedicated veterans, yet also the newest of under equipped rookies. So, for the third year, we have locked Dave up during the winter holiday...”
Dave: “Yeah, you still have to give me my car keys back you guys...”
Dean: “You’re not free yet Dave...”
*Laughs from audience*
Woodie: “Well, lets roll it!”

*movie plays, Dave narrates*

Welcome to the 2005 FIRST Robotics Competition Game, FIRST Frenzy: Ramp Rampage. The game features a giant 10 by 6 ramp with 20 bins, a large bin of 30 balls above it, and two 8 foot goals on the sides of the ramp. The game starts when robots on two alliances start with their back to the wall, and head to the ramp. The robots must head towards the ramp and either push it down (it starts balanced) or push it up. The bins will fall onto either the red or blue side, while the balls will fall onto the other side. Robots them must stack bins (bins that count for the score must be in a stack at least 2 bins stacked tall) bins, or herd balls to their human players. Robots will travel up and over the ramps to steal other team’s stacks, bins, or balls, and then put them onto their side. While there isn’t a minimum count for the goals to count, there will be a net that will automatically lowered or raised ontop of the goal. If the ramp allows for the red team to cross by having it leaning towards their side, the goal for their team will be uncovered. Same for the blue team, but if the ramp is balanced, then both goals will be uncovered. Then after 1:45, the teams have the option of either entering autonomous mode, or stay in human control mode. If the team chooses auton, their score will be doubled by 2. If they choose human control, the final score for that team will be lowered 10 points. In the last 15 seconds, all the goals will be uncapped, and the robots will fight to gain control of the tilting ramp. If a robot lasts till the end while balanced on the ramp, that team will be awarded 25 points per robot. After the match ends, each team will be awarded one point per ball, and one point per bin stacked in stacks bigger than two.

*movie ends*

*Claps*

D: “Now, lets unveil the field!”

*music plays*

Game is unvailed....

Anyway, that’s my idea for the game. Here’s some ways this will work...

*For teams to enter auton, both new auton buttons must be pressed by the human player on a pole behind the drivers. Only the human player can flip the case (imagine those war movies where you have to flip the cover, then press the button) and press the button and hold it in until auton activates. Now, one robot can be activated for auton, and the other can be still in human control, but the total will not be multiplied by 2, but instead nothing will be added or subtracted to the score.

*The net will be raised and lowered by an automatic sensor that detects the ramp’s position, only if it is completely touching the ground will it be raised, and only if it is balanced will they both be raised. The net will be be raised with a motor.

*The balls will fall via a trap door onto the appropriate side. The trap door will fall down allowing the balls to spill onto the right side. The door can either tilt left or right, allowing for a gap between the side panels and the door for balls to fall through.

*The bins will be stacked in 4 rows of 5 in the middle of the platform. They will be the same bins as 2003.

*The ball container on top will be 10 feet off the ground, right above the ramp.

*The ball container’s bottom will have an infrared bottom, so the robots can use infrared to get on the ramp. Gyros will also be added to the kit to keep the platform balanced by robots.

*A large lexan barrier will be placed next to the ball dump area to prevent the balls from escapeing.

*Balls will be herded to the human players like the 2004 game.

*Balls cannot be scored by robots, and bins will not be placed by human players.

Field diagram will be added in the attachment. Hope you enjoyed my game, FIRST Frenzy: Ramp Rampage!

Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2005 game...
 

OK here is my idea with a very hastily made attachment that hopefully will explain what I had in mind.

Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2005 game...
 

I'd like to see another game like the 2003 game where FIRST moves away from the ball/goal concept, which has dominated most FIRST games. 2003 was a great departure from that formula, and pretty much put everybody on a level playing field in terms of design. In my opinion, the problem with using balls and goals over and over again is that it allows veteran teams to re-use old designs and puts many newer teams at a disadvantage.

If FIRST could use something other than balls, boxes, and goals to win points in 2005, I think it would be a challenge for almost every team.

Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2005 game...
 

Just thinking of something I'd be interested in trying to work out -- With a purpose similar to that of the bar in this year's competition, have one or more (but not enough for all teams) raised platforms for the robot to be sitting on at the end of the competition. Something table-like that the team would not be able to simply roll up like a ramp or even climb like stairs. Maybe at a height of 4 feet, with a footprint not much larger than the 30 x 36. One disadvantage I see though is the amount of carnage if the competition is as physical as some of the matches I saw this year-- 130lb bot falling 4 feet would definitely require some durable construction.

Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2005 game...
 

Ok here it goes. The field will the same size as this year for obvious reasons. It will be kind of like 2002's game where there are different zones, but the middle zone will have 3 bar like this year running the width of the field. About 6 feet of the middle will be higher then the sides maybe going a little higher like 10 ft. the other ones coulb be 8 ft. the middle will be 4 ft. wide. under the middle bar the platform will have a small passage about 40 inches wide. just enough for a robot. Ok thats just he middle. The rest of the field will be regular carpe and on each side of the field there are 2 goal type things but they will basically poles on a wheeled platfrom. One of the poles will be 8 ft. high and the other one will be 6 ft. So a total of 4 goals. the goals will be colored for each alliance. it will the regular 2 team alliance thing. your alliance's goal will be on the other side of the field. The goals will be circle with a diameter of 35 in. Ok in the four corners of the field there will be a stack of 8 semi-inflated inner tubes. these will be worth points in the goals. If you det it in the 8 ft. goal it will be worth 10 pts. and in the 6 ft. goal it will be 5 pts. For the bars in the middle you will obviously be hanging from them, but hanging will only count if at least one of your goals is one your side with at least 2 tubes in it. If one goal is on your side, that being the side closer to the player station, the hand counts for 50 pts. and if its 2 goals then its 100 pts. There will also be 4 tubes in the player station for the human players to put in the goals. Now for an overview. So there are 4 goals on the field, 2 are yours and 2 are the opponents. there are four stacks of 8 semi-inflated inner tubes in the four corners of the field. in the middle, running the width of the field there is a 4 ft. wide, 6 inch high platfrom with a 40 inch break in the middle. on that platform are 3 bars. The middle 6 ft. of the bar is 10 ft. tall and the rest is 8 ft. tall. the game will run for 2 min. with a 30 second auton in the begining. So there is my design that i cameup with while typing this.

Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2005 game...
 

A very important item in Dave’s ground rules is that:

IMHO, it’s the thing that stands in the way of FIRST reaching it’s full potential of having a team in every high school. No way could any of the y2k+ games have been explained in 30 seconds to the general public; and, even to those of us who know what’s what, they just didn’t come across on TV.

The reason why is that, with so many objectives, there’s something going on all over the place – a kind of inexplicable mayhem that mono-vision can’t capture.

So, I suggest a single object for manipulation (E.G. a puck) and a single purpose (E.G. the goal). To control to the degree of difficulty and to add some eye-candy, there could be moguls, tunnels, ramps, and/or etc.

Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2005 game...
 

i've already posted many elements of this on other threads but here is the whole thing:

it is called "Cylinder Squares"

the field has red and blue scoring zones against the opposite stations which are lowered 2 inches from the floor level. on each side of the field (the long way) are platforms similar to last year's; 2 6-inch steps. going down the middle of the field would be a 3-foot transparent wall with a gap in the center big enough for one robot. there will be a bar adjoining the two wall sections at the tops.

at the foot-high sections of each of the side platforms will be 6 cylinders (12 in total). these will moved into the scoring zones by the robots, and the score for them will be the number of cylinders squared (1 gets 1 point, 9 get 81 points, etc) as i've said in 2 other posts, this will make the game very exciting and hectic. so the cylinders can be picked up more easily, they will have two holes going all the way through (the short ways) forming an X in the center.

for robot placement scoring, 25 points will be given to robots on the platforms, and 50 points will be given to robots only touching the bar and/or a small designated area of carpet below the bar.

if you want to give your opinion, send me a private message :)

Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2005 game...
 

I give you: Trough Tribulations, or The Heavy Ball Follies

The field is the same size to which we've become accustomed. There is a wooden (ok, diamond plate) trough in the middle of the field, about as wide as last year's ramp or this year's center platform, and 3-5 feet long. It can be anywhere from 4" to 2' high, depending on the balance between task difficulty and spectatorworthyness.

In the trough are ten 20 pound medicine balls. There are five black medicine balls, and five white ones, with alternating colors. The object of the game is to have as many of the white ones on your side of the field, and as many of the black ones on your opponent's side of the field at the end of the match. Each white ball on your field is +10 points, each black one is -10 points.

In addition, there are 5 red and 5 blue balls on each end. Each of the colored balls that ends up in the trough at the end is worth 5 points.

Finally, the human player.

Each of the four human players has a "spoiler ball", which will have to be either a playground ball or something similarly lightweight, so it can be thrown. If an even number of spoiler balls ends up in the trough at the end of the game, each blue ball in the trough is doubled. If an odd number ends up there, each red ball is doubled.

Some key points:
1. Medicine balls are heavy. No one will be able to roll around picking them up without that being the only thing they do.
2. Autonomous mode is not special. There are no points or parts of the field that are only available during autonomous.
3. There is no dissimilar way to score points. I'd like for there to be one, but I can't think of one that will fit. Perhaps a KOTH on top of the trough, or in the middle of it, or something.
4. The spoiler ball makes the game uneven, but adds some interesting strategy to it. Human players will decide close games at the end with their shooting.

Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2005 game...
 

Alright, i have already shared my idea in a different thread, so this is my idea. it is not a full idea, just an idea for something that could be part of the game, kind of like hanging, its not the entire game, its a part of it.

It is basically a pseudo-capture-the-flag in which there is one item that starts of on the top of a pole and it is worth an extra X points, this object is symmetrical, one half of it is one alliance's color, the other half is the other color (basically if you were to lay a pillow flat, the top half would be red and the bottom half would be blue). To get those points at the end of the match you must fullfill two requirements: your robot must be on the opponent's half of the field (or maybe up on top of some stairs or something as well) and the item must be laying on your robot somewhere: laying is defined as (this definition is made to make as few loopholes as possible): touching only your robot(not other robots or the ground) and only touching your robot where your color is on the object.

It seems like a good idea, the only problem with it that i can see is another robot can just touch it at the last second. However this could also be seen as an advantage, because it adds a LOT of excitement into the end of the game.

Toxic Teamwork
 

Here is a 2 minute explanation of the Toxic Teamwork game.

*****Editor’s note: Bobby is back at the Lone Star Regional after serving this great country for a year overseas. Bobby's words are in {brackets}. As always, this should be read veeeeeeeery slowwwwwwly in a deep Southern accent.

Bobby, welcome back to the FIRST Lone Star Regional. Thank you for everything that you do for our country and I'm sorry that you did not get to see the 2004 competition. {Thanks again for inviting me and I caught some of the 2004 competition on the Internet and it was incredible. There was so much action; I did not know what robot to watch on the field. I think it was even better than the Stack Attack game.} I agree! FIRST did a great job with the game in 2004. This year's game is called Toxic Teamwork because the robots have to clean up all of the "barrels." {Wow! You must mean all of the buckets. The field setup looks much different. What is the object of the game?} Right, there are over 50 buckets in play. If you look at ............ Look, a round is about to start.

(Baaaaaaaaat da baaaaat baaaaaat ............... da bat ... CHARGE! "THEY’RE OFF!") Bobby, do you .... {The robots are moving but they're not moving!} Yea, for the first 10 seconds, the human players drive the robot platforms that we call rovers because they go about as fast as the Mars rovers. {Oh, those blue and red platforms under the robots are NOT part of the robot. That seems silly because wouldn't the human players drive it to the same place every round?} Take a closer look Bobby. The red robots are on the blue rovers and the blue bots are on the red rovers. {Ohhhhhhhhhhh! I get it. So the other team gets to position the opposing bots before they start. That's a great idea!} Exactly, FIRST started implementing a random factor the year of Stack Attack and continued it with the random balls in Raising the Bar now they've raised the bar by randomly positioning the bots before the bots wakeup. {All I can think is goodbye dead reckoning. What will that team 118 do now? :rolleyes:} I don't know about 118, but everyone scrambled this year to learn how to use the gyros and IR sensors.

*****Editor's note: The Rovers are 30 x 36 x about 9" tall made of wood with 2 wheels driven (probably directly) with globe motors and have 2 casters. The "control" is a simple 2-channel radio control. The human player has two joysticks that drive the rover with tank drive. The rovers move very, very slow and can not reach midfield in the first 10 seconds. There would be a penalty if the two blue rovers or two red rovers touched before the first 10 seconds. The rovers are very weak and would be pushed around very easily by the typical FIRST robot. For those who think motorized platforms are a little aggressive, read on and you'll discover a way not to have them motorized. The other side of the argument is that this may be a great way to implement robot starting position randomness for years to come.

{Hey, that rover knocked over that stack of buckets.} Yea, some more randomness before things get started. {Did those buckets fall in that bot?} No, each team gets 5 buckets to start the game. They can choose to keep them in their player station which scores 2 points each or put them in their bot and potentially score a bunch of points in the toxic dump area or on the rover.

*****Editor's note: The buckets are 5-gallon buckets that you can get at Home Depot. Please remember that Home Depot's headquarters and the Championships are in the same city; can you say major DONATIONS of 5-gallon buckets!!!! The buckets do not have tops and there is a piece of "foam" glued to the inside bottom of each bucket (about 6 to 12 inches thick) so they do not nest all of the way together therefore it is easy for the audience to tell that they are stacked along with the fact that they will not get stuck inside of one another. One reason that they do not have tops is because it makes them stack easier. Second reason is that tops are not readily available without ordering them. The buckets also have their handle.

There they go! {Wow! They are all crawling off of the platform. I think that I'd just lose the autonomous time and crawl off when I got control.} Bobby, ohhhh no; FIRST thought about that too. If your robot is not off of the platform after the 15 second autonomous period, then your robot does not "wakeup" for an additional 40 seconds and you only have 1 minute to run your bot. {Ohhhhhh, I'd definitely use the autonomous period to drive off of the rover. They seem to all be going to the black bucket.} Yep, the black bucket is worth 10 times that of the orange buckets so everyone tries to get it or at least get close during the autonomous period. {It seems that the rovers have quit moving.} You're right. The human players can not operate the rovers during the autonomous period but as soon as it is over, they have control again.

*****Editor’s note: The Rovers do not need to be motorized for the first 10 seconds. The mats could be used from Stack Attack and the humans could just move the rovers manually. BUT this means that the human players could not move them for the remainder of the match so if they are motorized, then even a team that does not have an operational 'bot still is driving something around and effecting the game.

You're about to see why some call this game "Bucket Bashing." Team 456 is picking up a lot of orange buckets while their partner, team 118, fights team 364 for the black bucket. 364's partner 701 is already putting buckets in the toxic dump. Each bucket in the dump is worth 5 points and if they are stacked upright then they are worth 10 points each because you are saving space in the dump. {What is 118 doing now?} They are stacking the buckets on the rover which is worth 10 points a piece because they will be transported to another more environmentally friendly toxic dump. {Do they get 20 points if they are stacked and on top of the rover?} Exactly! {Why is 364 trying to hang that bucket on the hook?} If they get it on the hook, it is worth 20 points. If you look over there, team 456 is herding buckets and giving them to the human player and they get 2 points per bucket that is left in the player station. {Hey, the rovers keep moving around.} Yep, the human players are positioning them so their team can place the buckets on them. {This game shouldn't be called Toxic Teamwork, it should just be called Crazy! Hey, 364 is going after the red rover. Ohhhhhhhh, what a hit by 118. I guess that's what they get for trying to empty the toxic transporter.

Bobby, you haven't seen anything yet. The robots are about to ........ {GO FOR THE PLATFORM! They are fighting like crazy to get on and under the platform.} Yep, if you get on the platform, you get 50 points and if you are under the platform, you get 25 points. {How high is the platform?} Just 24 inches high. (Mahhhhhhhhhhhhhh ... that's the buzzer) {Wow, that was crazy ... just crazy}

If you're still interested, here is a quick list of thoughts for the game.

-The toxic dumps could be mobile goals just like in the past.
-Toxic dumps could be a community dump with red and blue buckets or they could be red and blue dumps.
-The toxic dumps need to be big. Maybe near the center platform.
-There needs to be some better "candy" for the autonomous mode other than just the black bucket ... i.e. the robots need to have an incentive to do something after they get off of the rover. Maybe have the "candy" disappear (not worth anything) after the autonomous period.
-Rovers could be bigger than 36 x 30
-Buckets could have reflective tape on them like in Stack Attack.

If you're still reading, here are some good & bad points.

The good:
-Buckets are readily available and not easily destroyed
-There is only one scoring object
-The toxic dumps and platforms are easily constructed out of building materials
-Score can change quickly (some may view this as a bad thing)
-There is lots of offense (stacking and moving buckets)
-There is lots of defense (removing buckets and defending the buckets)
-Game is analogous to industrial automation
-Buckets are challenging to manipulate
-Home Depot might pitch in a few thousand 5-gallon buckets
-Small bots might make it on the scene with the under-the-platform-score

The bad:
-Buckets are difficult to throw ... this may be good
-The rovers are motorized ... don't absolutely have to be motorized
-Robots scoring under the platform might not be audience friendly
-Frequencies for rovers may not be available (8 frequencies per field x 4 fields at the Championships). Might have to integrate into the team controller and change the rover brain for each team; not a very good idea.
-Don't know if the rovers will be reliable

Thanks for reading about the Toxic Teamwork game.

Take care,
Lucien

Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2005 game...
 

ok, i've been thinkin' about this for awhile, and i figured i might as well throw an idea out there... i personally think that the games should be simpler, make teamwork more critical, and be very fast paced.

FIRSTball (ok, maybe the name needs work...)


FIELD
the field is almost a square with 2 ball corrales on each side of the field, and one 4'x 8' goal at each end of the field. the robot starting zones are in the middle of the feild (the colored squares). except for the robot starting zones and the goals, the carpet is solid grey. rules for the ball corrale are similar to this years. the goals are made of a frame that is 10" high going around the section of colored carpet (see pic)

GAME OBJECTS
there are two basic game objects: basketballs and obstacles.
balls
at any given time there are only two balls in play (def: in contact with the feild, a robot, or a HP) when the balls come into contact with the colored carpet inside of the goals, they are considered out of play. any alliance that brings an out of play ball back into play will be penalized. the balls are colored so that when they become out of play, the alliance that they "belonged" to can throw another ball in. the color of the balls doesn't effect scoring. an team can only be in contact with one ball at a time, and can't be in contact for more than 15 secs. at the start of the game, there is a ball in front of each goal.
obstacles
there are two obstacles made of 2.375"OD EMT. there is no point value assigned to them in any way. they are 8' wide and 14" tall. the obstacles start out between robot startin positions. (see pic)

HP
the human players may only interact with the balls while they are in their alliance ball corrales. the HP can only move around in their alliance's half of the field (i.e., they can't go past midfield). the HP players can throw the ball to anywere on the feild, and to other human players and robots.

SCORING
an alliance gets 1 point for putting a ball in the opponents goal, and 3 points for not being in contact with the grey carpet.

i'm sure that i left stuff out, so feel free to point out problems, ask questions, etc.

Here it goes...
 

note: this game was created by myself and my girlfriend Melissa Fitta (also registered on CD). This is the 1st of 4 or more games we have created (but the only one we have finished so far)

Troublesome Trash

Basic summary: get the footballs into the trash barrels, then get the trash barrels in your end zone or in one of your 3 barrel holding bins, then get your bot into one of the end zones.

Field: see attached thumbnail. The Alliance Stations are the same as they are this year, as is the field size. The human player stations are where they were this year as well, no there isnt a ball corral. Each human player starts with 5 footballs. 15 footballs are placed along the wall in each end zone. There is an IR beacon in each end zone, and lines along the floor leading from the stairs to the end zones (they arent in the drawing though).

Match Setup: 1:45 of remote controlled play, followed by 15 seconds of autonomous

Scoring:
5 points per football in a trash barrel that is in either your end zone or one of your barrel holding bins
25 points per trash barrel in a barrel holding bin of your color
20 points for each robot of your color that moves itself into your end zone during autonomous*
40 points for each robot of your color that moves itself into your opponents end zone during autonomous*

optional game add on: putting the lid on the trash barrel (and locking the lid clamps) doubles the value of the balls inside.

*= robots must not be in an end zone at the start of autonomous or they will be worth no points (moving out of then back into the same end zone doesnt count). The only exception to this is when a robot starts in one end zone, then moves to the other during autonomous, that is OK.

Note on the midfield barrier: there are 3 ways across, through the pipes (2ft tall, 1.5ft between them), under the platform (12in clearance), or up the stairs and over the platform (6in tall 2ft deep 3ft wide step, 1ft tall 4ft deep 9ft wide platform)

Good things:
-pretty simple
-trash barrels are not designated, so stealing trash barrels is a cool aspect of the game
-autonomous at the end could be interesting
-footballs are harder to pick up (for robots at least)
-think of the robot drive types designed to handle that midfield barrie
-variety of tasks
-think of all the fun things you could do with the robot after competition

Bad things:
-autonomous at end mght be easier or harder, depend on where your bot is when it starts
-trash barrels might break, so it could be 2003 bins all over again
-decreased HP role

Re: Here it goes...
 

Overall, I feel this idea.

Just two things I noticed in the rules...first, I'm not too sure about that HP job. I think we'd do well in the South, since football is king down here. But some of those schools up north may have trouble. Perhaps something more Stack Attack-y?

My other thing is with the pipes in midfield. A foot and a half is pretty skinny, leading me to think that most teams would make their robot N by 18" by 12". That's pretty petite...and if there's one thing we need to keep the "civilian" (for lack of a better word) crowd interested, it's big things with lots of action (hence why I loved FIRST Frenzy). The same thing applies to the field--in 2k3, it was the stack. In 2k4, it was the bar. Every field has to have that THING. I'm not exactly sure what it could be here, though.

But overall, it's a good idea. We need more footballs in FIRST.

Re: 2005 tournament ideas
 

Just a few things

-No balls, no boxes, but a mixture of the two would be something. (example: boulders.)
-Instead of a flat playing surface with an obstacle in the middle (such as this year: a flat playing surface surrounding a platform with a hanging bar), why not a bumpy playing field that would require careful manuevering and construction of a robot's drive train.
-An autonomous mode that has many options other than one. (you can do this and this will happen or you can do this and this will happen. Not just one thing.)

Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2005 game...
 

Here's a few ideas for someone, somewhere to mull over.

1. Instead of 2x2 competition why not have 3-4 robots working in tandem to complete a number of increasingly complex tasks. If a group, selected randomly, can effectively complete a task another one comes up. Sort of similar to a game where teams have to move or place objects on a pressure sensitive switch instead of knocking it off. In this way another area would become available (via a wall or similar barrier becoming flat or a series of hanging bars placed equal distance apart for teams to grasp alternately) for another challenge. It would be a Mars Rover experience without the 7 minute delay for signals and the resultant feedback.
2. The tasks could become increasingly complex and difficult to attain and the points would then be greater. Cooperation not competition among the alliance but competition among all to get as many points as possible from each trial.
3. I like the idea that even with the auton mode that human players still have a place to participate. I'd still like to see that as a part of any new game.

Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2005 game...
 

I have one very simple suggestion for trial.

Currently, the top 8 are allowed to pick within themselves for the finals. Now, while you do want to reward the top teams for their performances in the qualifying rounds I suggest that, to mix it up:

The top 8 are "frozen"--that is, they cannot pick from within themselves.

Team 8 picks first, and then so on through 7, 6, 5...

The biggest flaw with this idea is that it leaves it so that teams that *do* deserve to qualify for nationals might not. But if that is the issue, than why do we even have finals, and not just go with who did the best during the qualifying matches.

Just something to mull over...

--Petey

Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2005 game...
 

We could also have 1, 9, 17 alliance 1
2, 10, 18 alliance 2 etc

This would ensure that the top(debatable) 24 teams are in the elimination rounds. It might also make it harder to win as you robot might not be as compatable with the team that you are alliance partners with.

I like the choosing because of strategy. I also liked the idea of after alliance captain 8 makes his pick then he picks again . thus reversing the choosing teams. Great idea, thanks to whomever origionally thought of it.

Autonomous mode to last a max time but also a minimum time with a point reward that desends after the minimum time. Must be a great enough point allowance to make teams want to try and do. Also will make teams consider when to give up and continue the game.

Hardest thing to do is come up with ideas when they could be useless depending on the main game.

Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2005 game...
 

FIRST 2005 Game Idea

Title
 Puck Pandemonium
 Donut Disorder
 Donut Discord
(as you can see, I’m still searching for a decent name)

Before I go into a detailed explanation of this game, let me establish the basics. The goal of this game is to put rings (or donuts) on vertical poles mounted on moveable pucks. In order to add some engineering challenges and some spice to the game, each robot starts on top of a octahedral puck, like those used in past FIRST games, which is 6” tall. In order to score points, robots will likely have to dismount from the pucks, manipulate the pucks, and manipulate donuts. To add yet another engineering challenge, a bonus will be given for any robot ending the match on its puck with that puck in the appropriate scoring zone. This game includes a number of ways to score points as well as ways to de-score opponents’ points. Puck Pandemonium will allow for both aggressive defensive and offensive strategies that should make it extremely fun to play as well as to watch.

The rules I have listed are meant to give you an idea of the game structure rather than provide a complete set of rules. I have provided a not-precisely-to-scale diagram of the field for this game as an attachment. If you have any questions or comments please let me know so that I can make improvements to the game.




Field
 The field will retain the dimensions of the 2004 field.
 The robot playing area will be 48 ft. long by 24 ft. wide.
 The total area of the field will be 64 ft. by 24 ft.
 The playing surface will be the same carpet used in 2004.
 On one side of the field, the carpet will be colored blue in the area between 9 ft. from the wall and 19 ft. from the end wall on that side of the field.
 On the other side of the field, the carpet will be colored red in the same fashion.
 The remainder of the carpet will be colored gray (as usual).
 In the center of the field will be a 4 and ¼ in. platform measuring 5 ft. wide by 10 ft. long.
 In the center of the platform will be mounted a pole 2 in. in diameter and 7 ft. tall (measured from the base of the platform).
 On both sides of the platform, two poles will be mounted, each 2 in. in diameter and 5 ft. tall (measured from the base of the platform). Each pole will be 20 ft. from the end wall on its own side. The two poles on either side will be located 4 ft. apart and 2 ft. from a line bisecting the field lengthwise.
 One pressure sensor (similar to those used in Stack Attack) will be located on each side of the playing field, centered between the two side walls and set against the end wall. An infrared beacon will be placed above each pressure sensor on the end wall.
 There will be four octagonal ‘pucks’ having a diameter of 4 ft. from flat side to flat side. Each puck will have 8 casters and its platform height will be 6 in. Each puck will have a single pole 2 in. in diameter and 4 ft. 6 in. high (for an overall height of 5 ft.) located on the puck at one of the puck’s eight vertices.
**Editor’s note – see diagram of field on last page.

Game Piece
 The game piece for this game will be an inner tube or tire approximately 15 in. in diameter and 4 in. in thickness; from here on out, they will be called donuts.
 The donuts will be of three different colors.
 Those donuts starting around the 7 ft. pole will be colored yellow. There will be 10 yellow donuts.
 Those donuts starting around the two 5 ft. poles in the blue carpeted area will be colored red. There will be 10 red donuts on each pole.
 Those donuts starting around the two 5 ft. poles in the red carpeted area will be colored blue. There will be 10 blue donuts on each pole.
 At each human player station there will be 5 yellow donuts. These donuts may only be used if a robot has triggered the pressure sensor on the opposite side of the field during the autonomous period.

Robots
 Robots are to begin the match having dimensions no greater than 30 in. (long) by 24 in. (wide) by 42 in (tall).
 Robots will compete, as in the 2004 game, as a red and as a blue alliance.
 Each robot will begin the match being entirely supported by one of its alliance’s pucks (colored red or blue), with no parts of that robot extending past the edges of the puck.

Autonomous
 The autonomous period will start at the beginning of the match and will continue for 20 seconds.
 In order to gain access to the 10 yellow donuts for the human players on an alliance, the pressure sensor on the opposite side of the field must be triggered during the autonomous period.
 If, during the autonomous period, a robot triggers the pressure sensor on its own side of the field, the 10 yellow donuts will become available to the human player on the opposing alliance.
 If the pressure sensors have not been triggered by the end of the autonomous period, the human players will not be allowed to use the donuts (and therefore not take part in the scoring action).

Scoring
 There are two distinct ways of scoring in this game: 1) placing donuts on the poles located on pucks and 2) being on one of your alliance’s pucks within your alliance’s scoring zone (the red or blue colored zone as defined in the field section) at the end of the match.
1) Donuts on Poles
 When placed on a pole located on a puck, each yellow donut counts 10 points for whichever alliance’s puck it is on.
 When a blue donut is placed on a pole located on a blue alliance puck, it counts 5 points for the blue alliance.
 When a red donut is placed on a pole located on a red alliance puck, it counts 5 points for the red alliance.
 When a blue donut is placed on a pole located on a red alliance puck, it descores any donuts below it for the red alliance.
 When a red donut is placed on a pole located on a blue alliance puck, it descores any donuts below it for the blue alliance.
 Once a donut is on a pole located on a puck, it may not be removed.
2) Robots on Pucks
 Any robot ending the match wholly supported by one of its alliance’s pucks that lies entirely within that alliance’s scoring zone, will receive 50 points.

 The total points possible for an alliance are:
10 yellow donuts on the center pole X 10 points each = 100 points
20 yellow donuts from human players X 10 points each = 200 points
2 X 10 red/blue donuts from poles X 5 points each = 100 points
2 robots X 50 points for being on puck in scoring zone = 100 points
= 500 maximum possible points.

**Editors note – 500 may seem like much too large a number, but please keep in mind that the 2004 game had an even higher maximum number of possible points [21 small balls X 2 sides X 5 points each X 2 (multiplier) + 4 small balls X 10 points each X 2 (multiplier) + 2 robots X 50 points for hanging on the bar] = 600 points). Despite this potential, time limitations as well as the competition between the alliances kept scores down in 2004 and will do so in this game as well.

Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2005 game...
 

Title: Canyon Crossing



Field : The field overall has the same paremeters as last years.Except no massively huge ball drop overhead, and no trigger balls. On the field in front of the player's station there is a seven foot high trough to score 13"balls in. In the middle of the field, there is a 3ft wide gap on each side there is a 1' high wall with a moderate ramp leading away. There also is a 5' high bar that starts at the begining of the red side's ramp and extends to the start of the blue side's ramp. At one end of the gap there is an opening on the red side and at the other end is the blue side's opening. The opening is wide enough for only 1 robot to pass through.


Game Piece : on each side there are about 20 13"balls which are for the other side and are worth 5 points each FOR THE OTHER SIDE. The human player has 4 10 point 13" balls which he/she places on the field for the other alliance. The alliances are 2 robots per side.

Robots :


Autonomous

Scoring

Re: Here it goes...
 

From what I'm seeing, this game is an awful lot like "Fireball", a game I used to play in gym class.

What about this:

For some reason--crossing a line, breaking a beam, or just an arbitrary zap--your robot is disabled, and to be re-enabled your human player has to get a football or something into a bin or through a hoop.

Obviously, the biggest difficulties here are:
1) Danger. You get all those footballs flying around and someone is gonna get hit.
2) Impediments. One of the things our team practiced for this year's game was throwing a thirteen inch ball over the wall, over the stationary goal, under the bar, so it would hit the middle pole in the stationary goal and uncap a 2x multiplier. We got it to work a couple times in practice, but it was always too difficult given the angle at which the ball had to be thrown due to the "alliance wall". Of course, it would be easier with a football...

Hmmm...

I definitely like the idea of making the human player's role a physically challenging one. That really promotes a more "well rounded" FIRST ideal, even if it is only coming from individuals. That could be the football and baseball player in me talking, though.

--Petey

Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2005 game...
 

* this is the completed post i had tried to post several times over*

Title: Canyon Crossing

Field : The field overall has the same paremeters as this years.Except no massively huge ball drop overhead, and no trigger balls. On the field in front of the player's station there is a seven foot high trough to score 13"balls in. In the middle of the field, there is a 3ft wide gap on each side there is a 1' high wall with a moderate ramp leading away. There also is a 5' high bar that starts at the begining of the red side's ramp and extends to the start of the blue side's ramp. At one end of the gap there is an opening on the red side and at the other end is the blue side's opening. The opening is wide enough for only 1 robot to pass through.


Game Piece : on each side there are about 20 13"balls which are for the other side and are worth 5 points each FOR THE OTHER SIDE. The human player has 4 10 point 13" balls which he/she places on the field for the other alliance. The alliances are 2 robots per side.

Robots : The robots have the same dimensions as this year. They have to cross the gap in order to retrive points though. They can cross either by traversing the Bar, crossing a "bridge" robot, be thier own bridge, or enter the gap on one side cross the gap, and exit on the other side. the robot may collect balls and score or herd to human player so that he/she may score. Human players place 4 10 point 13" balls on the field before auton begins. These balls are also for the other side. The opponents balls are worth points only after they have been scored for the opponent for five seconds, otherwise they are deducted from your final score at full value.

Autonomous : Starts after HP places their 4 10 point balls for the other side on the field. Robot may do what it does for 30 seconds.

Scoring: assuming we are RED
5 points for each 5 point red ball
2 points for each 5 point blue ball
10 points for each 10 point red ball
5 points for each 10 point blue ball
20 points for each hanging red robot in the gap.

so have 10 red 5 point balls, 3 blue 5 point balls, 2 red 10 point balls, 3 blue 10 point balls, 2 robots hanging.
We have (10*5)+(3*2)+(2*10)+(3*5)+(2*20)=131
Qualifying points are Winner get 2x loser's score and loser keeps thier as QP.
Elims. are best of three winner moves on.

( I will try to draw this field layout up and post as soon as possible :D )

Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2005 game...
 

Just a quick update on the field drawing: I'm in the last week of school and have only until THIS THURSDAY :ahh: to finish the field and post it, because on friday I graduate. I can say though I'm very close to having it complete.

Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2005 game...
 

Finally it is done, now here it is:

Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2005 game...
 

i think most of the teams have fallen in love with the '03 and '04 games and are very interested in boxes and balls. there are very interesting ideas on this thread about the '05 game, but most of them have been built on the '03 and '04 competitons. my team was a rookie in '04 and we found it extremely interesting, but if the same patterns are followed, i dont think that any new thought would have been put forth for new stratergies.

i might be wrong

Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2005 game...
 

I think it would add an interesting element if the game somehow involved those shape-sorting toys that you played with in pre-school. The one where you had the box with the different shaped holes on top, and you had to put the appropriate shaped piece into the matching hole.

http://www.babyheirlooms.com/product/shape_n_sort.cfm

The different shapes could all be worth different point values. Teams could choose to build something to handle only one of the shapes, or go all out and be able to handle all 3 (or 4 or however many there are).

Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2005 game...
 

The shapes idea has already been thought of by another, smaller robotics competion in canada(skillz robotics, i think). i also think that sorting with a human player wud be kinda easy.

Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2005 game...
 

I read this somewhere on chiefdelphi along time ago (and I would give credit to whomever came up with this but alas, I cannot remember)

It was posted as a joke, "evidence" of next years game. The person had claimed to have found (at FIRST HQ) hundreds of the new game pieces; 2 liter soda bottles.

I thought this was rather hilarious, but then I began to think. Soda bottles would be REALLY good game pieces, with their labels removed of course (or should they remain on for a potential sponsor?). They are cheap, readily available, and must conform to specifications issued by the bottling industry. They are also, tough. They are take considerably more abuse then balls for example.

In addition, many strategies can be employed to handle these bottles, just examine a bottling plant, they are handled by suction manipulators, by self centering grippers that conform to the "lip" found just below the cap etc.

And, in order to get that many bottles...FREE REFRESHMENTS (just kidding), maybe contact a local bottler to see if they would be interested in selling/donating unfilled bottles(if I remember correctly, they cost only about 9 cents each and the caps are another 5)

Perhaps, these bottles could be collected and then funneled into smaller game pieces like boxes or bins with attached lids (think recycling bins) so the team could collect the bottles and put them into the larger boxes. Those boxes would be scored differently.

I really donno what would make a good game. I haven't thought about it alot, but I thought I would tell y'all about the bottles. Perhaps they can be Incorporated into another's design.

Best luck!
-Andy

Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2005 game...
 

Just imagine the caffeine high the FIRST people will be on after drinking all that soda to provide us with enough empty bottles for the game!!! :yikes: :D

Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2005 game...
 

I hate to bring up an old thread but...

I have an idea for an interesting game piece. How about something hanging, like from a pendelum.

Here's my idea, a doughnut shaped gamepiece hanging on a hook which is attached to a long rope hanging from something high.

This gamepiece would be very hard (but not impossible) to grab and would require innovative manipulator design.

The rope when pulled, could activate say, a ball drop, or autanamous mode for the other team.

Run with it

-Andy

Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2005 game...
 

VGMasterShadow's 2004 Idea: think of better ideas

If you guys are looking for a beta tester, I'm your man.

Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2005 game...
 

Alright, so I was talking with someone (Gary, perhaps?) at Robot Rodeo about how utterly evil it would be to switch the balls in this year's game to ping-pong balls, or ball pit balls, or just something that's freaking small. (On the flip side, you should've seen the balls as of Friday night. Horribly overinflated...some were watermelons. But I digress.)

But back to the subject at hand...FIRST hasn't tried a game where scoring was real-time (as in not when the field was at rest) since 1995. As far as I can tell, FIRST was a different thing back in the day. However, having been all intimate with a field now, I'm more than certain the method could make a proper revival.

So, what's the big idea?

Consider a field covered liberally in ping-pong balls. Or ball pit balls. Or anything annoyingly small like that. Teams get two minutes to herd up said ping-pong balls, and feed them through a sort of hopper system, which counts and scores them. (For a human player element, have the scored balls feed back into the player stations. They then have to return them to the field as fast as possible, so their robot could re-scoop and re-score them. Just don't let them drop it into the hopper/robot.)

One point per ball, with a bonus for a hopper-blocking item being on top at the end.

Pros: Action until the very end. Since there's a theoretically endless supply of balls, you want to keep going until the very end of the match.

Cons: Another complicated field (ask anyone who set up at the Rodeo), field reset will hate it, real-time scorekeepers will be obsolete.

Thoughts?

Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2005 game...
 

I can see the headlines now: Entire Northeast US completely sold out of ping pong balls! :D :rolleyes:

Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2005 game...
 

So I haven't thought out all of the rules and regulations and whatnot, but my idea is to get rid of boxes and balls all together, and do something with flags. There would be:

-2 machines per side
-Each flag worth a certain amount of points
-Certain number of points for machine locations at the end of each match

I haven't thought out the rest of it yet but I did create a pretty little picture for those of you who have no idea what I was just describing! :D

Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2005 game...
 

In other news, US faces a shortage of ingredients for ping pong balls. Usage of other spherical objects eminent. :D

Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2005 game...
 

A good game of capture the flag (or flags) is always fun!