Re: [Official 2006 Game Design] Game Elements and Subtasks
 

I think the excitement of the end-of-a-round task is a positive for participants and spectators. The ramp in 03 was very cool, but for some it was a place to hang out for the whole match and while hanging from the bar was cool, it took too long for many teams to accomplish so it wasn't necessarily end of match exciting.

So I propose getting all of your alliance robots "home" as the excitement, just have it worth enough points that teams/alliances can't ignore it. Maybe it doubles your score, so it behooves you to play on the field for as long as possible scoring points before dashing home.

Re: [Official 2006 Game Design] Game Elements and Subtasks
 

I don't mind the ever popular "big ending element" so long as it doesn't become the main attraction ( like in 2003 which was basically King of the Hill and forget the stacks or last year where teams looked only to hang and could care less about dealing with the balls). Perhaps if they weren't worth such a huge amount of points or you get the large amount of points if your whole alliance accomplishes the task.

Re: [Official 2006 Game Design] Game Elements and Subtasks
 

I'm inclined to agree here--50 points is a heck of a deficit to overcome when you can't hang. Last year, that was ten balls, five if you capped, per robot. If both of your opponents hung, you had to score more than a ball dump's worth of balls, or have a capper. Slightly skewed, if you ask me.

This year, ignoring rows, an end zone was all but neutralized with three stacked tetras, and was overcome on a fourth. Result? Not everybody went for the end zone. Factor in the Vex competition, where the 20-point bonus was four balls, or two capped. Perhaps I'm misconstruing this, but I believe that's a further acknowledgment of the ginormousness of the bonus last year. So, with that, I present...

Re: [Official 2006 Game Design] Game Elements and Subtasks
 

I liked the "ups and downs" of scoring in the TriplePlay where rows were formed, and de-formed, and tetras were capped and de-capped. That's better than one "chreshendo" ending task that scores big points.

Having only ONE game element (the tetra) in 2005 was good; lots of different tasks to do with one element. Some robots could carry more than one element which was good for design theory. Having to do tasks with lots of different elements tends to "water-down" the design process.

Tasks in autonomous period should be DIFFERENT than in driver period. This year's triple play was good given the "magnetic hanging tetras" and green-stripe tetras were used in autonomous mode and/or scored differently.

So, keep the "cargo" simple, but do multiple tasks. Assign some tasks for the robot by itself with no "cargo" ala hanging, climbing, going through a tunnel, etc.

I'd also like to see the ability for one robot to AID AND UPRIGHT a fellow alliance robot that has tipped over; what are friends for anyways?

Re: [Official 2006 Game Design] Game Elements and Subtasks
 

I kinda like having feild elements that can break. It means your robot and drivers need finesse. Also every time somthing breaks everyone will give you an OOOOOooooooo. Granted it sucks as far as running the competition, who wants to have 4 times the amount of feild elements than are on the field to ship around. Of course if they are small enough, who cares!?

I would like to see the playing surface change. Maybe, a hdpe floor, or painted metal, some glossy, some grippy. But that would make it tough to ship around, and for teams to set up. Maybe interlocking floor material.

I would love to see some very creative game element like the floppies in 1999. I liked how they deformed when you tried to do anything with them. Maybe get thoes hot dog shaped Microbead pillows in different sizes and you make beds for the voulenteers to sleep on?

Re: [Official 2006 Game Design] Game Elements and Subtasks
 

I've got a better idea. That idea is velcro.

It's cheap, available, and can make handling objects a pain in the butt, so long as you say an object must be together to count.

Re: [Official 2006 Game Design] Game Elements and Subtasks
 

Just as a thought, on the off chance we have balls again...

Suppose that over each player station was a set of electric leaf blowers, that turned on and off on certain events. It'd sure be more interesting to herd balls if you've got big blowers stopping you.

Re: [Official 2006 Game Design] Game Elements and Subtasks
 

You know what would be a great game element? A Frisbee or some other disc like object!

This is why they would make sense
-Lightweight
-Cheap
-Easy to replace
-Can fit many into a small area (great for shipping
-Encourages more Innovation in design in what ever task you would like us to do (aka, balls are getting boring at this point)
-Everyone likes them (ever meet someone who doesn't? My point exactly)

Re: [Official 2006 Game Design] Game Elements and Subtasks
 

How about ballons? With a penalty for popping more than a certain number in one match? Hey, they're cheap and easy to transport if they are deflated.

Re: [Official 2006 Game Design] Game Elements and Subtasks
 

I like the suggestion about Frisbees (generically called "disks"). There is a huge disk golf league here in Rochester, NY.

Think about this in an alliance.
Redabot #1 has a frisbee launcher; Redabot #2 goes wide left while redabot #3 goes deep right. Redabot #1 fakes a frisbee toss "launcher" to redabot #2, but then throws a "hail mary" pass to redabot #3 which catches the frisbee in the blue alliance end zone and scores a "touchdown" for the red alliance. Talk about teamwork! I can just see the announcer's going nuts over that type of team play!

Re: [Official 2006 Game Design] Game Elements and Subtasks
 

I'm thinking for the game elements we should try things that are wildly out of proportion to each other. Not like 13" balls and 30" balls of 2004, but something like golf balls and tetras - two completely differently sized and shaped objects that require completely different mechanisms to deal with.

More game element possibilities:

• Footballs (please oh please!) - they are odd-shaped for a great engineering challenge, popular outside of FIRST for good PR, and easily available in large quantities (think NERF!)
• Large, thin sheets of foam, rubber, or plastic - maybe in the vicinity of 8x4 sizes. They would be extremely awkward for a FIRST-sized robot to attempt to manipulate
• Marbles! Hundreds and hundreds of marbles! They are so small, teams would have problems not running over them with their robots, adding to the challenge, espeically when there are... 8x4 plastic sheets laying on top?
• A major field element that moves, like in 2001, but bigger... and spinning. Think, giant merry-go-round in the center of the field. Hm, now I have to run over to the game design thread and submit this idea that just came into my head...

Re: [Official 2006 Game Design] Game Elements and Subtasks
 

Idea #1

I know I briefly mentioned it before, but the more I think about it, I really really really think the field should have a chasm all the way across the middle of the field. I'm thinking it should span midfield and be about 4 feet across (just slightly longer than max robot length) it should be about 1 foot deep and have verticle sides so you can't go down in and then get out very easily at all.

There would be some strong/mandatory scoring reason to cross this chasm.

There would be a few ways to get across:

Bridge it yourself - the robot is its own bridge. Just think, totally new kind of mechanism, and not a whole lot to copy from in the real world. Definitely a medium-sized point bonus would be given for bridging it yourself, as opposed to using the field (below).

Really high 2004 style bar - used to swing across over the chasm. I'm thinking it should be 12' high, so you can't do a simple one stage arm.

Teetering bridge like 2001 - sounds easy enough but here's the catch. The bridge never comes down to the ground like. It makes a 6" stair like 2004. Also, the pivot of the brige should be really high so it is steep when it is tilted. Also, the bridge should be very low traction hdpe, just like 2004 or 2003.

There is no alternate route option (like going around the chasm) because it spans entire mid field, but there are three ways of doing that task see?

The chasm with the few ways to get over are perfect field elements for a really exciting game. You could even make one of these actions worth points at the end for the "big finish" For example, the bridge would be used to cross during most of the game, but at the end of the match, if you balance the brids it is worth points.

I was thinking scoring objects would be thrown by robots over the chasm, but if you wanted to make it really hard, it is possible that there could be goals which must be transported across the chasm. I would keep the goals very lightweight though.


Idea #2

The field has a large central 4 sided pyramid structure. I imagine it would go to about 5' high and the sides would be angled at about 40 degrees. It would have sharp/defined edges just like a real pyramid, so it is diffuclt to transition from one face to another. At the very top (where the point would usually be) is a small flat spot for one robot to sit; this will be like "king of the hill" from 2003 Stack Attack. Except only one robot can fit. Above this flat spot, supported by 4 posts, is a goal to contain the scoring objects. The bottom of the goal is 3'6" above the flat platform so a full 5' tall robot cannot fit on the flat platform. The sides of th goal wouldn't be too high. There would be other goals on the flat part of the field, but putting the scoring objects in this one on the pyramid would be worth significantly more points. The goal also may be capped by a larger scoring object for a multiplier. Here's the catch though. On the bottom of the goal (which is above the small flat spot on top of the pyramid) there is a mechanism that may be triggered by a robot to release the scoring objects at any time during the match. Finally, of course a big amount of points is awarded to having a robot on the small platform at the end of the match, and a good amount of points is awarded to a robot that is on (and stays on) the side of the pyramid at the end of the match.

I haven't totally thought this out but I would like to see the game played such that the center of attention is the top goal of this pyramid and robots are driving all over (up/down/sideways) this pyramid for the majority of the match.

So, what do you all think of my ideas?

Re: [Official 2006 Game Design] Game Elements and Subtasks
 

I'd be interested in seeing some sort of dynamic field element next year. It would add a twist to any game if there were an object that moved or changed during the course of the match (either self powered, or powered by a teams robot on the field). One idea would be like a gate or bridge, or a slightly less likely robotic mobile goal.

Another idea would be scoring elements which can change shape (like hinged joints or something). One more option along these lines would be several different scoring elements on the field at the same time (can you say triangle/tetra, circle/sphere, and a square/cube all on the same field at the same time). This would either create diversity in the manipulators or make an interesting challenge on developing a manipulator which can efficiently handle all of them.

Re: [Official 2006 Game Design] Game Elements and Subtasks
 

I know I have posted this before, but putting the electronic id tags (like what is found on high priced items in stores) on the scoring objects, and then placing the detectors on goal posts. It would be easy to create a game like soccer that would be scored in real time. I know I am not the best at explaining things so I understand confusion.

Re: [Official 2006 Game Design] Game Elements and Subtasks
 

I think it would be really neat, this goes along with autonomous and sensors, but if whatever scoring element we had wasnt colored. Then Usign RFID teams had to identify if the scoring object counted for them.

I.e. All the tetras were white this year with RFID chips installed in them. Then scattered about the feild. Teams would have to go pick them up to see if they counted for thier alliance. THAT would be awesome!