In response to Andrew's last post:

Ooo... This I really like! It has everything. Simple field construction, emphasis on speed and maneuverability, simplicity, conflict, variety, visual appeal. I can imagine all kinds of different robot designs for this game. We could have flag holding tanks, bridge manipulators, ball shooters, fence crossing goal manipulators, and lots I haven't thought of I'm sure.

One problem though. It needs a name :p

-Joel

Hmmm. I don't have a good idea for a name for Andrews game yet, but I do have an alternative for "wacky warehouse" - it really should be titled "Lucien's Lunacy" (or if we are in a really good mood, "Lucien's Legacy")!:) :)

-dave

I whipped up a quick drawing of Andrew's playing field since his text drawing looks less than good in my browser. I think I got everything in the right places. The bridges may be toggled the wrong way. Anyhow, you get the basic idea. Enjoy.

Here's my suggestion for the 2003 game:

Game Title: to be determined

Playing field: see attachment; the physical dimensions are same as what has been used the past two or three years.

The field is divided in the center the same as in the 2001 game, with the addition of elevated horizontal ball bins like the 2000 game.

There are 40 footballs on the field, 20 red and 20 blue. There are 20 footballs behind the human player stations, 10 blue on the blue side, and 10 red on the red side.

There are two large, heavy balls, one each red and blue on the opposite side of the field from each alliance station.

Each alliance is composed of three robots in the Qualification Rounds, four robots in Elimination Rounds. Three robots play for each alliance in each game.

Scoring:
Each football is worth 1 point if it is in a ball bin at the end of the game.
Each large ball is worth 10 points if it is in a ball bin at the end of the game.
All balls score points only for the alliance corresponding to the color of the ball.
Each robot is worth 10 points if it is in its home zone at the end of the game.

Bonus points can be scored for robots completely on the ramp at the end of the game, as follows:
Only one robot completely on the ramp: 25 points.
Two robots completely on the ramp: 20 points each.
Three robots completely on the ramp: 15 points each.
Four robots completely on the ramp: 10 points each.
A 2x multiplier will be applied to all bonus points if the ramp is balanced (i.e. not touching the rug).

Robots cannot score bonus points and points for being in their home end zone at the same time.

In Qualification Rounds, the winning alliance receives Qualification Points equal to 3 times the score of the losing alliance, and the losing alliance receives Qualification Points equal to the score of the winning alliance. Strategic team play becomes very important, as it is possible for the winning alliance to receive fewer qualification points than the losing alliance.

Wow. That could have some interesting possibilities. It could be an interesting twist to any game.

While I like the idea, I think the game choice is very important. I don't think that it would be a great twist to games like this year's. It would give the losing alliance a huge incentive to drop their score to zero.

great ideas!

I like the idea of plywood flooring on the existing field layout. Traction limited, cheap, durable. FIRST can designate a grade of plywood like they did for this year's carpet to ensure consistency.

Now, create a 4'x4' or 4'x8' grid on the field with 2x4's. Use steel angle covering the corners of the 2x4's (similar to this years steel angle on the goal edges). The 4x4 sheets of plywood nest in the grid. If a sheet is damaged, it can be lifted out and replaced.

With 1/2" ply nested in the 2x4's, there would be a height diff of about 1 inch to cross to get around.

I like the idea of a short period of autonomous play at the beginning. This would be a good tie in to the lego league folks way of playing.

Frisbees are a good choice of playing pieces. Just call out a minimum and maximium diameter, rather than specifying a specific brand. A frisbee would require a very low lying device to manipulate, but the 2x4's would require that there is some ground clearance to get around.

I think 2 on 2 is good for many reasons. However, if it could be done without getting too confusing logistically, "3 on 3" or "4 teams of 2" would help accommodate the growing number of FIRST teams at the competitions and/or allow longer matches.

Goals: perhaps there could be a goal that could accommodate frisbees being dumped in as well as vertical slots worth more
points.

An arrangement like this would create a lot of challenges to the teams, but still allow a scoring format that would "spectate" well.

Those are some of my sane ideas and here is one out of left field just to ruminate over:

No wheels or tracks-"walking robots only"

I can't wait for next year.

Analysis
 

I just began reading this post... As I see it, there were two main problems about this years game

:mad: Traction - too much emphasis on high traction, being able to push others, being able not to be pushed, etc.

:mad: 2-Dimensional Field - As someone else put it, this year's game was all about flooring it and steering.

So, my suggestion...not really a game, but a few ideas how it could be expanded

:D King-of-the-Hill style play. Have a large hill in the middle of a rectangular field. Say if you have this year's field, the nuetral zone would be the hill. There would be sides and a flattened area on top. The point is to get scoring items up there. Now, here's the catch...

:D De-tractionize - Someone suggested using cheap linoleum for the field. Now, this would be too much for the entire field. So instead, here's my suggestion: carpet for most of the hill, but make the slopes of the hill linolium, and make them at such an angle that it would be hard to get a grip on it. Or, if you really wanna get evil, you know the rollers at airports on the x-ray scanners? Remember the show, "American Gladiators" on USA who knows how many years ago? Yeah, thats the kind of hill I'm talking about!

So basically, what it comes down to is somehow getting on top of the hill and being able to drop an item off up there. Now, the real kicker is if we completely detractize it...

:D Blind Spot - Now, if we detractionize it completely(i.e. rollers), chances are robots are going to get up there by speeding up and using their momentum to get to the top. Now, that also means unless you can get it perfect every time, you're going to over-shoot and go down the other side. If the hill was uber-king-of-the-hill, meaning tall hill, drivers wouldn't be able to see on the other side.
Now, if FIRST was nice, they'd provide some kind of mirror on the top of the other alliance station. You've seen those spherical mirrors on trees at bad intersections? Picture something like that on top of the glass of this year's alliance station.
Now, if FIRST was evil, they could put reflective tape in certain areas and have the robots auto-navigate back. This could give us deprived programmers out there something to work on ;-)


Now the good and the bad:
:D TV-Apeal - Who DOESN'T want to see robots driving up a hill consisting of rollers. I mean, they're going to be going quickly, going to overshoot, and most likely, spin out of control. Thats genuine TV material without the Battlebot-ish element of pure destruction.
:D Hard Challenge - The main challenge would be essentially to master control in a traction-less environment. I'd love to see how teams would over-come this
:( Human Player? - What human player?
:( Too simple - Essentially consists of running up the ramp over and over. Needs more thought in it


Yeah, this is far from a complete idea. But if theres one good idea in this post, it's the element of losing control. As I see it, this is probably the best way to get TV apeal. The main problem so far is that FIRST has been something that only techies would appreciate, while Battlebots has that element of destruction - or, excitement and the match turning around at any point in time. If FIRST added some elements of the field that basically cause the robot to loose control, well, think of them as some obstacles that add some fun to it.

If not a king-of-the-hill game with rollers, it would be cool if there were random roller spots on the field, or parts of the field's floor that are 'unstable' - such as a merry-go-round at floor level - when a robot goes on it, it's motion causes that section to spin. Basically, anything that takes some of the control away from the drivers makes the game more exciting and more suitable to a TV-audience.

some ideas
 

obviously some of you have way more time than i do to come up with all of the aspects of the game.

but i do have a few simple ideas that i'd like to throw out.

i like the idea of building a bridge.

i was thinking about the toy my daughters had when they were little. it looked like an hwy cone with different colored donut shaped rings that were stacked on it. we could use inner tubes!

i think big rubber bands would defiantly add some excitement.

a limbo type action would be fun. i think that might have been a part of a game in a previous year.

an obstacle course would be really interesting.

and how about a revolving door idea?

some thoughts that may inspire others!

peace

You're absolutely right, and The Lucas (another member of team 365) also pointed that out to me. I forgot about how some of this year's teams would deliberately move out of their home zone at the end of the game to reduce the number of QP's the winning team received. So, let's modify my scoring proposal to the following:

In Qualification Rounds, the winning alliance receives Qualification Points equal to 3 times the score of the losing alliance. If all three of the robots in the losing alliance score points by being in their end zone or being on the bridge, the losing alliance receives Qualification Points equal to the score of the winning alliance, otherwise they receive qualification Points equal to their score.

I know it makes scoring the game more complicted, but it provides the needed incentive for each side to try their best to score the most points all the time.

Joel suggested another concept for using the human player for any "ball" type game.

Let's say that you have red and blue "balls" on the field that count say 5 points if they are in a goal.

Put green balls in each player station. These balls would count 1 point for -both- alliances if they are in a goal.

there is incentive to score these balls, as they raise the overall score. But, they do not affect the outcome of the game.

Andrew, Team 356

We are having pretty good ideas here.
Keep thinking and posting new ones!!

Don't judge a playing field by its cover
 

I like the idea of maybe two different floor surfaces on the playing field. Perhaps a harder slicker material where speed and manuverability really are enhanced and a softer more grippier surface where power pushes and tug of wars can be shown of. This type of field will call for the use of multiply drive systems. Maybe being able to switch from wheels to treads and vice verces throughout the match. Altering surfaces where driving over both surfaces are necassary to be successful might call for a really cool and fun to watch match.

I Hope I'm not Posting too Late
 

I hope I'm not posting to late. Sorry Mr. Lavery, but I don't have an exact field or rules for this potential game. I tend to agree with a lot of these posts and I am a firm believer that the game needs to be easily understood by the general public. My line of thinking mostly tends to do with making the game very easy to understand, and impossible to "master". This year's game was excellent. Certainly, some improvements can be made, but such improvements are well represented in these posts.

Things to keep:

- 2 v 2 !!! Equal chance to win, cooperation, competitiveness all in one. It was vey fun to watch as well. More than 4 robots would become sheer chaos with radio signals, queueing lines, scoring, field size etc. 4 v 0 was too much like an exhibition and was not that exciting after a while. The only way that one could implement a 3 v 1 would be after carefully orchestrating an big advantage for the 1, and not making that advantage too big. It would be too hard to make the game fair. Fluctuating alliances, where the alliances somehow change during the course of the match might be interesting, but confusing as heck for a viewer. It would be a robotic soap opera. "Wait, that robot stabbed the other one in the back !! NO John !!". Free for Alls, BAD !!! Teams might make shady Survivor-type alliance to gang up on eachother. Lying and scheming teams would end up winning. It would defeat the purpose of the alliance system which is so cool and good at demonstrating the ideals of FIRST.

- The field size is good, let's not change it. Give the regionals (and FIRST) a break.

- The game was much, much easier to understand at first glance than 2001 :confused:.

- Each match had the potential to fluxuate in power in favor of one alliance or another. Meaning, the fact that the goals were mobile and could stolen and swing the points drastically made the game very exciting. 1999 and 2000 did not have this feature to this extent. The 3X Loser's Score also helped weaker alliances upset the stronger one. So I'd recommend keeping that.

- There weren't too many different ways to score points, which didn't confuse the viewers so much.

- CARPET IS GOOD. Dirt is too messy, would get slippery, the field would have to be raked after each match to fill holes made. Plus the pits would get messy. Slippery material, I wouldn't recommend it, there would be high speed crashes into the barriers and other robots and send parts flying (which is what we don't want in FIRST). Also, I think teams would figure out how to grip to it pretty quickly anyway.


Stuff that's good, but could be Better

- The torque v speed balance was pretty good. There was never a no-brainer answer to that field. Fast robots could disrupt the goals so th big mean couldn't get them and the Torque bots could drag the fast ones around. Neither type had a dominant advantage in Q-matches. However, Eliminations was in drastic favor of torquing bots and speeding bots had to strategize a lot to beat them. Perhaps, place a little more emphasis on speed and maneuverabillity. The torque factor will always be there in a game with two opposing alliances because of the robot pushing factor. So, I would recommend making an aspect requiring more speed. I have suggestions to fix this later on.

- Tug of Wars weren't that bad. I must admit, I felt a massive testosterone rush when I saw our robot dragging 2 goals and two robots. Tug of Wars are unaviodable in a game with a movng goal. I would, however, add something that would discourage tug of wars that is slightly more influential than not making it back to the 10 point robot zone.

- Inclusive Scoring Zones ... well, I won't beat the dead horse.

Stuff to be Overhauled

- This year, everyone knows that there were 2 different games for Q-matches and Eliminations. I didn't like this so much because Robots who didn't perform well at all in Q-matches were picked for finals. Some teams would sacrifice Q-points to strut their eliminations ability. Keep the games the same.

- Concerning autonomy and such... There is an easier way to promote autonomy than making a rule saying you can't touch the controls. Implementing barriers to block sight to the crucial areas on the field would promote some autonomy on its own. If there were sight barriers this year, then the Retro-reflector would have been much more widely used. Robots would become autonomous without an official ruling.

- Barriers and obstacles are excellent ways to promote more than Autonomy alone. Obstacles that cause severe inconvenience will promote fast robots get around the field more quickly. It would discourage making slow torquing bots because it is a much longer route to get from point A to point B. Drive systems would be more inventive so they could get over/ around obstacles. Adding route chokepoints, hills, etc. also adds a lot to the strategy of the game without making the scoring any more complicated. Heck, it could also lead to the use of a zip-line, as an option to by-pass these obstacles. The greatest advantage is the level of complexity for the team to think about, that the audience doesn't have to think about scoring wise. Also, they make the field look a lot cooler. So, HILLS, WALLS, CHOKEPOINTS, GOOD !!!

- Frisbees and/or footballs sounds REALLY REALLY COOL. A team might have to spin a frisbee using a motor before launching. The team would have to learn some aerodynamics to learn to throw the frisbee corectly with the robots. And, being a human player would be a lot more fun. Balls are almost too simple to deal with ow and teams are learning how to pick them up really well. Throw us all a curve (so to speak).

Sorry, i wrote so much. I didn't even realize it. And, thanks Mr. Lavery for making this thread.

~Hubicki~

wow, lots of good stuff said in there, hubiki :)