Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] Autonomy Discussions
 

Simple solution: If the robot is moving, bonus.

And then make it so that it's unappealing to be doing donuts for the whole two minutes.

Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] Autonomy Discussions
 

1) Getting rid of the driver elimates half of FIRST...can anyone tell me the last "sport" they watched where nobody was in control of the sport.er?
2)Starting the match off with autonomous mode needs to be rethought. Everthing is static so deadrecogning is easy and effective. If they pushed not a given time but rather an element of the game that had to be done in autonomous mode. For example, to hang or get on the platform when you cannot be in active control of the robot.
3)If there is going to be autonomous mode, think of the rookies, that puts some of them at a huge disadvantage so anything more than 15 sec maybe 30 secs really shifts the weight of winning to the veteran teams.

FIRST until recently has been pretty rookie friendly but putting a long autonomous mode can create great a big problem. I was in FIRST for the designing, building, and driving, which isn't the whole game, I understand that, but putting so much emphasis on autonomous mode can detract from other aspects of the game.

Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] Autonomy Discussions
 

In this thread i have seen a lot of discussion about having all autonomous matches or having autonomous at the end of the match and other things but in my opinion i don't think that it should be any more than it is now. I believe that FIRST competitions are so energetic and fun because the competitions have always been intense and fast paced. Robots zoom across the field knocking down stacks and herding balls while other robots are doing everything thing they can to do it better. This fast paced action is because there are people controlling these robots. Teams are cheering for the machines and the people controlling them and each robot has its own personality due to the human drivers. Imagine a slow paced game where robots slowly roll around bumping into things and each other. Now I'm not saying that all robots would be slow and boring because there are some amazing teams that would definitely do amazing things but the majority of teams have trouble enough with 15 seconds of autonomous. In an all autonomous game its programmer vs. the field but in the matches as they are now its drivers vs. drivers and it makes for a much more exciting game. Also imagine building a robot for an all autonomous game. All it would have to be is a simple rolling platform with sensors. It would not need to have a powerful drive train or be built like a brick wall because an all autonomous robot would not be in pushing matches with other robots and it would not be trying to play defensively or offensively. There are lots of other great robot competitions that are all autonomous like botball but i believe that FIRST should not be one of them.
I also don't think that autonomous should not be at the end of the match because that would just kill all of the excitement that has built up in the last minute and 45 seconds. Imagine watching the super bowl where the players were blindfolded for the last 15 seconds of the game. Can anyone say anticlimactic? Personally i would like to see FIRST matches all human controlled because they are much more exciting but autonomous does give an interesting challenge to the programmers.

Ben Van Selous

Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] Autonomy Discussions
 

Everyone seems to want some element of randomness in the autonomous mode... how about have 2 IR beacons (I was originally thinking just colored lights, or just beacons, but having a colored light on top of the Ir beacon would make it audience friendly) the 2 beacons switch back and fourth between red (1 frequency of Ir) and blue (2nd frequency of Ir) and at the start of autonomous they assume a color randomly, and have something that needs to be done to that light, say a ball knocked off it, it bumped, or whatever, but have it be at a disadvantage for your opposition's light to be activated. This way you have randomness but still an element of simplicity. Have this and goals in autonomous mode... enough that it would be a combination of 2 different autonomous modes that result in maximum benefit so that it would be very difficult/ imposable for one robot to do both.

A second idea is to have 2 pressure pads, or activation elements that both of your teams robots need to activate at the same time (that is check that both are pressed concurrently, not at the exact same time) as in both robots have to find their designated area and press a button, knock off a ball (or bowling pin) etc.

Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] Autonomy Discussions
 

For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology.

A autonomous requirement creates significant problems requiring science and technology. A competition without an autonomous mode would just be another "robot" competition where the term robot is a loose interpretation.

My concern is that rookie teams are skipping this all together. Some that I've spoken with have stated that they only got the robot for a short period of time and that was just before competition.

Perhaps this is more a matter of planning and less a matter of complexity. My asumptions are:

1. Programming techniques can be learned on any platform (ROBOvation, main robot, last years robot etc.).
2. Learning new programming techniques can be done year round.
3. Integrating sensors into the program can be tested and learned on any platform.
4. Using an alternate platform, program development should occur in parallel with mechanical/electrical development.

Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] Autonomy Discussions
 

i think autonomous mode should be important like it was in 2003, but also there should be more then one route to go.. and each route should have a large large impact on the game...! like the bins in 2003
also if wanted allow autonomous to continue as long as the user wants.... but every point scored in autonomous has like triple value or something...

Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] Autonomy Discussions
 

I'm sure it's been posted somewhere, but there is one gaping problem with it. Ever since Ramp 'n Roll way back when (and ever before, for that matter), FIRST has always scored everything when the field comes to rest. In Ramp 'n Roll (according to FIRSTwiki), teams scored by getting a big ball over a set of goalposts. The big problem was that some teams were so adept at this that the judges couldn't keep up.

Thus real-time scoring worth anything became sort of like a 4v0 match--we tried it, it wasn't as hot as we thought, we move on.

Of course, it would be theoretically possible to track scoring objects using either video tracking or some sort of I-last-was-moved timer. The former route has its problems in that referees would have to officially entertain a video replay, something FIRST has shunned thus far (and rightfully so, in my humble opinion). The latter option would likely prove expensive, since FIRST would have to build more than a few of them, somehow power them, and make sure they remain consistent (presumably through a Robovation controller).

The idea is good--it's just that FIRST would have a very hard time implementing it.

Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] Autonomy Discussions
 

Something is needed to put more of an emphasis on autonomous mode. How about the object of the auton mode is reached then that could be a multiplier for another part of the game. All teams would have the opportunity do accomplish in autonomous mode even if the time runs out. It would be tougher to accomplish after other teams have taken control of their robots but what the heck, let them try if they want.

Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] Autonomy Discussions
 

I like that idea. Something like if you knocked off the bonus ball this year, your score would be multiplied by 1.n?

If you could figure out a way to prove it was done in autonomous (in that example, the refs remove the ball when the drivers take over?), it could work pretty well. It'd also force folks to develop navigation systems kinda like 111 did for 2003, which I think is hotness. (After all, dead reckoning won't get you anywhere if human-driven robot blocks your path.)