Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] Game Elements and Subtasks
 

Exactly. How about something like ice?

Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] Game Elements and Subtasks
 

One thing that I have always thought would be an interesting twist is having the alliances not decided before the game but during the game. The how I havn't quite figured out but it would be something that could be changed throughout the match. This would make it fun because the two best teams out there could be working together and then all of a sudden with 5 seconds left one of the other robots changes the alliances and which would completely change the outcome of the game.

This would add a new twist that FIRST is always great at coming up with.

Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] Game Elements and Subtasks
 

I think a larger degree of uncertainty would be cool. So everyone's mind would be off loop-holes and on making a bot to cope with everything.

Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] Game Elements and Subtasks
 

Yes that would be totally awsome, but mostly a robot that is good at one or two things function best. But to creat a robot that could do everything will would be challanging yet fun. hmmmmm....

Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] Game Elements and Subtasks
 

The only thing is, alliance swapping has two key problems:

1) It will confuse the tar out of a civilian spectator. To the average joe who heard "robots," "free," and "contest" in the same sentence in the paper, an alliance stays as such.
2) It'd create a defensefest, as you don't know how you end up. That, or you effectively end up with a 4v0 game again, as all of the teams want to cover their backsides should it be them who's switching alliances.

Personally, I'd be partial to just giving teams the four team numbers on the pairings. Then when the teams are queued, they draw colors. Kinda Survivor-y, I know, but it'd require teams to be fast with the strategy, or make it an open book.

Gee, I hope that I make sense at 11:30 at night...

Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] Game Elements and Subtasks
 

I was really disappointed in this years game. I think the balls are getting old, but I have been waiting for tennis balls for a long time. The don't pop either, unless ran over by a lawnmower, which I have done. I also like the idea of getting rid of the carpet. There are always complaints of it getting torn up. I also like human player involvement but not as much as this year, and not as little as last year. The balancing ramp was a really good idea a few years ago. It took skill and it was very exciting to watch as a spectator.


I think future games also have to keep in mind, poorer and newer teams. The games are getting harder and harder for rookies, and if I were new, I would not want to join. Teams without much money also don't have the money or space to build a whole field or enough to buy 72 pipe flanges for goals.

Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] Game Elements and Subtasks
 

This IS my first year on a team, so I really can't relate to other years- but I agree, balls probably do get old fast.
I think that another texture flooring would be good- something that doesn't have a lot of tread, to add to the confusion.
I liked the hanging- but I think that having something movable that the robots have to get on would be cool.
I LOVE the idea of whichever ball is on top gets all the points- it would REALLY put the pressure on!
Some suggestions from my team are to keep the stairs, NO MORE BOXES, and to do more with autonomous.
I would really like to see the idea with only seeing from the "Robot's-eye view"...
I think that's all I have to add.. I was also thinking something with buttons, and when you press them, SOMETHING happens... I'm not quite sure... The idea is still formulating :rolleyes:

Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] Game Elements and Subtasks
 

Im also still interested in the "invisible to the human eye" identifiers of scoring objects.

For example, have a scoring object that emits a "point" or "no point" IR pulse code. Human eye can't see it, but the robot's gripper could have a receiver to read the pulse, and relay that information back to the driver so he/she can determine whether to score that box or not.

It would mimic real world robotics problems today, forcing robots to feedback information to their operators who are unable to fully understand what's going on in the robot's environment (robots in iraq, robots in space, robots undersea, robots in nuclear facilities - all places where a human cant visibly be there with the robot and has to rely on sensor feedback).

Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] Game Elements and Subtasks
 

here we go, since i already posted this in the first thread, before seeing this thread, and for some reason you cannot delete posts, but whatever

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.

Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] Game Elements and Subtasks
 

you make sense, but you couldnt have random alliances in the finals, for obvious reasons

Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] Game Elements and Subtasks
 

If anyone knows that really old Nickelodeon TV game show Legends of the Hidden Temple, they had a variety of really great game challenges (for humans) that could perhaps be used in a FIRST game (for robots or human players).

Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] Game Elements and Subtasks
 

Well the past two years there was a variant of a "King of the Hill" style play. I know in 2002 there was something similar to a "Gold Rush" scenario with the three movable goals in the middle of the playing field. And I was just thinking, why not a "Capture the Flag" type of scenario; where there is something that your team needs within enemy territory, and vice versa for the opposite team.

I also like the idea mentioned of an interactive playing field, where something happens on the playing field when an event occurs; like something on the playing field moves. Something like this year with the ten-point balls but more drastic, but not too mission critical like "Stack Attack." But I would like this to happen during human operator mode.

I was thinking of more teamwork critical objectives. We can use the floor panels used for the human players in "Stack Attack," and have robots use these to activate the event on the field. Like in order for a person to take an object from the other team, the other team must activate the switch, which will make the objective (the flag) available. Like it will lower the cage around the "flag." So one robot is on offense, the other is on defense, and vice versa for the other team. But since it is necessary for two robots to get the objective there will be a lot of pushing, and shoving, along with speed and timing being critical. Just an idea, nothing concrete.

I love how with this year's game, there are so many things available to do, but nearly impossible to do within the time limit.

Another evil thing that will definitely make scouting and preparing for a match a lot more difficult, is if for some "odd" reason, the team colors on the LED's switch in the middle of a match. This is would be a unique twist to the game, but will probably get shot down. I am pretty sure somebody else mentioned about this (but I am uncertain).

Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] Game Elements and Subtasks
 

They did this in 2001. I liked it a lot better, made you think quickly.

I'm working on various game ideas for the main thread, and trying to organize all my thoughts before I post.

Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] Game Elements and Subtasks
 

THAT SHOW WAS AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 111111oneoneone

but yeah kind of an obstacle course dealio.

maybe the robot could do something to make it easier for the human player..but that would put more emphasis on the hp in leiu of the bot. i thought the amount of hp interaction was pretty good this year.

Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] Game Elements and Subtasks
 

Things I did NOT like in 2004.
Static tasks

Scoring awarded Teams too many points for a static task. A team could hang from the bar much too soon in the game. The 50 points gotten were easy points, since no other tasks had to be done. If the point value of a hanging robot were 40 instead of 50 points, this would encourage more active task participation.

Autonomous

Autonomous mode could not tackle most of the tasks in the game. Of course, 2004 saw us with a new controller. The newness made autonomous mode extra difficultly. Nevertheless, there ought to be a choice of simple tasks during the autonomous phase. The ball triggering was simple enough, but more tasks would be better.

Things that I DID like in 2004
Task quantity

The multitude of tasks during a match meant that teams had to decide which task to do and when to do it.

Navigation

Navigation beacons were a great idea. If teams have time this summer, they can learn how to use the beacons. This would be great during autonomous mode next year.

Choices

Two pathways were available for a robot to use for reaching the other side of the field. This provided flexibility.

Scoring

The simplified scoring, along with the use of the opponents’ points, was much easier to understand than in the past.

Suggestions for another game in 2005
Game objects

Next year should use the boxes instead of balls. A change between round and non-round requires that teams change their thinking about the objects, and not just modify the manipulator from last year.

Object location

Have the human player place an object on the field that an opponent robot must locate and move. The scoring should award Points for moving the object into a goal area.

Human player

Make the human player active at the start of the game as was done in 2003. This provides visual proof to the audience that the humans and robots do interact.

Vertical control

Include a tall task (like a hanging bar, or stacking), so that teams learn how to maintain balance, or learn how to prevent toppling.

Carriers

Provide a wheeled object on the field that can support a robot. Allow a partner robot to move the object while it is supporting an alliance robot.

Dynamic field

Provide a hinged pathway to a platform. The rules should allow the robot to move the pathway (ramp) to an open or closed position. The platform can trap a robot, unless the partner moves the pathway into a proper position.

Goal post

Use a goal-post in the game. A robot gets points by touching each goal post in sequence. Award Extra points for moving an object from the first to the second goal post.

Obstacles

In 2004, teams did climb an obstacle, though it was not required. Perhaps we should have an obstacle to climb which results in points.

Cooperation

Require a partner to pass an object to the alliance robot to get points. Each team should have their robot supported in different marked field areas to count toward points during the pass.

Active tasks

Provide at least two constructive tasks that result in points. For example, stacking boxes, or positioning an object into a field zone would earn points.

Zones

Devise an inner court and outer court on the field. Make the transfer to the inner court a task that requires cooperation with the partner. The partner must activate a lever, or slide a wheeled object to cause the alliance partner to reach the inner court. The points for doing tasks in the inner court should be double the points for those on the outer court.

Autonomous

Provide a large selection of tasks to do in autonomous mode, with points for each task. Teams must then tailor robot design to complete one or more of these tasks.

i have more ideas, but i also have some mercy.
Jerry W