Ok, so YOU design the 2003 game...
 

Okay, it has been a week since the National Championships, and you have had some time to reflect on what worked about this year’s game, and what didn’t. Are you sitting around, already thinking about next year’s competition, and wondering what it might be like? Well, how about an opportunity to possibly influence what next year’s competition might be like?

Several groups are working with and within FIRST to address various aspects of the challenge for next year’s 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, I would like to 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 how to design the game for next year.

I 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. We want to figure out how to go forward from here, and help build an exciting, challenging, stimulating and engaging competition for next year.

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 be audience friendly and presumably TV-friendly (i.e. you can explain the 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 entire game).
- Any field elements must be able to be constructed from readily availably and inexpensive materials (ask yourself this question "can I buy all the parts at Home Depot or Builders Square?")
- 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).
- 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, playfields 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.

The need for non-tangling tethers is entirely up to you. :D

Here is what I 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. Likewise, there is no guarantee that you will receive a response on anything you submit. If a suggestion is incorporated into the game, you will probably not know about it until the game is revealed next year. If it is not incorporated, you may never hear why.

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! I know that if there is a single place to go for this sort of input, it will be this forum! Let's hear your thoughts.

- dave lavery
FIRST Executive Advisory Board

/me pops knuckles, starts typing
 

Let's have a game on a concrete or dirt floor. Carpet was proven this year to be no match for some of our more vigorously traction-oriented teams. Concrete would be a more uniform, cheap surface that almost everyone already has available, but dirt would probably be more fun.

Let's have a game that has more opportunities for autonomous behavior. Use the retroreflective tape again next year (It'll catch on, give it time), but turn the robots on for five seconds before the drivers can touch the controls. That forces innovation in controls to rival the great mechanical designs we've seen over the years.

Let's have a game that uses heavy game pieces. Concrete blocks, bricks, bowling balls, medicine balls, 180lb goals on casters - the game is more interesting if two humans would lose to two robots. (Note - the trouble with the heavy game pieces is that they can tend to make the game slow - fast goal towing robots were the exception to the rule this year.)

Let's have a game where a team can score before time runs out.


So here's my game:

-Three minutes per match.
-Three teams of two robots each on a hexagonal dirt or sand field.
-Ten (or some other non-multiple of three) cinder blocks are stacked in the center. Robots go get the cinder blocks, then bring them to their initial scoring zone.
After one minute, the number of bricks in each scoring zone is tallied, and the zones shift randomly. So the red team's zone is now across the field from where they are now, and the blocks that red worked so hard to score are now counting for blue. The teams then have a minute to move the bricks to their new scoring zone. At the end of that minute, the bricks are scored, and the scoring zone changes again.
-Basically each match has three one minute periods, with no break in between. A robot's goal is going to be different during each period - either getting blocks out of the center, preventing other robots from moving your blocks, or preventing other robots from moving their own blocks.

Ok, so it isn't a complete game, or even that great of a start, but you get the idea - make the game hard, and integrate some way to assure scoring before time expires.

Two things:

I think this year we had two different games: the qualifying matches and the elimination ones. Different strategies to play each. I'd like to have only one game, only one rule for the whole competition.

An interesting thing would be a mata-burro (I don't know the name in english) wich is a bridge made of transversal sticks. The distance between them would make it difficult to cross the bridge, because regular wheels would get stuck in the gaps.


I'll think of more things and edit this post later.


By the way, I think this thread is great! I tried to start one like this before but it was too early...

How about an over head cable to get to some part of the field which is other wise inaccessible.

JUST DONT LET TEAMS BE ABLE TO ZERO THE WINNER AGAIN.

CliffHanger 2003
 

I haven't really though of all aspects of the game, just the main obstacle. Let's make it so 1/2 of the field is on the ground level and 1/2 the field is on a plateau 12" high or higher (maybe 2') You can score on the 1st level, but scoring on the 2nd level is like a 3 point play in basketball. Place the scoring zones up in the air, so simply driving into something won't unscore it. Let's make it harder to unscore the object than to score the object. Also, let's make the scoring objects heavier than a ball or inner tube.

I would also love to see dirt, but probably impractical given some of the venues (dirt and basketball arenas don't mix.

Now, ice arenas would probably love to have this game. Put carpet (or some other high traction material) where people walk and have the game on ice. The logistics would be pretty hard, but think of all the new designs.

-Paul

my 2 cents
 

My team didn't really have a problem with the carpets, but i heard that some teams are pushing traction to the extent that the stuff peels up or tears. I can picture already the school administrators raising hell if we try to put a large dirt or sand playing field indoors, but maybe just plain plywood floors? They would be more uniform and clean then dirt, and less susceptible to damage then carpet.

I'd like to see larger teams, 3 on 3, maybe 4 on 4, though even numbers of alliances to avoid ganging up. 3 on 3 though would elliminate the occasional 2 to 1 match ups when one robot dies or isn't working, 3 vs 2 is i would think would be a more even match if one team dies. Plus with 3 robots per alliance, more robots could compete at a time so they would be more matches for each robot, and you'd likely see a greater range of capabilities, which brings me to my next suggestion...

Several ways of scoring, soccer balls in a goal, bowling pins set upright in scoring zones, robots hanging from a bar or climbing onto a foot high pedestal, large levers that initially are neutral but can be tipped one way or another to score for that alliance, or any others, just pick several to see a wider spectrum of robot designs, beyond just ball robots or goal robots. Potentially some way of scoring such that one robot must lift or work directly with some other robot to do one single task (possibly worth many more points) Like perhaps a single long metal rod, too heavy or awkward for a single bot, one must pick up each end, and place onto some type of support structure like the rack in gyms for holding the bar when doing bench presses.

Ok, that's about as far out into left field as i want to go right now. Good luck on AP exams to all the high schoolers and final exams to all the college students
~Scott

Any sort of different scoring system would be much appreciated...

Re: my 2 cents
 

I would like to see a game where speed, maneuverability, and teamwork are important. I'd like to see a game where alliance partners can benefit by passing playing field artifacts back and forth. I'd like to see a very low friction playing field; ice perhaps. I'd like to see very low friction goals. Take this year's goals. Attach a skirt to the bottom plate. Add a blower motor. Voila, Hover-Goals! I can just imagine goals zinging around on the playing field while robots frantically try to catch them. I suppose I'm envisioning a game that vaguely resembles air hockey.

-Joel

Enough with balls
 

I think a game similar to hockey, but with frisbees would be awsome!

For an alternative floor how about some 1/4" steel? Like to see teams break pieces off of that!
And frisbees for scoring devices.

I'll come up with some rules after finals.


Wetzel

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What could have real life uses....

i say go back to a game like 2000, people understood it quickly, it was fun, anything could happen, there were alot of "upsets", and the scoring wasn't too complicated. it had just the right amount of pushing and shoving, but the game didn't rely on it, and stratigy was extremely important. plus you could play defense, offense, or both. i really enjoyed 2000.:cool:

Re: Enough with balls
 

FRISBEES!!!!!!! i am all for it.

About the surface of the playing field i suggest plastic ice. the type used in skating rinks in malls and exibitions where a real ice surface is not availiable. It is very durable and cheap. comes in tiles and easy to transport. Also adds a little bit of challenge to traction although most rubber will grip it anyways.

THe scoring this year was really complicated for outsiders to grasp quickly so i suggest an incredible easy way of scoring and increase the strategy in other areas such as two types of gaols worth different amounts. Also an interstingly shaped field like a V shape where two teams start at the ends of the V and race towards something at the bottom of the V.

Just some ideas for consideration as i think of more i will post them.

I liked the way there was an obstacle in the middle of the field last year (bridge + bar), that allowed different robots to overcome the obstacle diffently (some went under the bar, some just went over the bridge normally, some (well one :)) were an extension to the bridge, etc.). Something to make it more interesting for the drivers might be to have columns in spots so you have to go around them, or have half the field blocked off except by one narrow ramp, or some other sort of devious obstacle that Dean is so good at creating :)

Stephen

I've always liked the idea of having two different mobility modes. I loved the robots in 2000 that could move along the central bar, and I think that sort of thing is a lot of fun to build and watch. It would be neat to have a couple of ramps, maybe a foot high, separated by about 4 feet of space, with a bar about five feet above them (imagine the 2000 field, but cut widthwise across the ramp, move the two halves apart, and rotate the overhead bar 90 degrees). That way, teams could choose to either traverse the bar to get across the gap or somehow climb up and over a one-foot vertical wall. That's probably complex enough, but if you really want to get ambitious you could have a monkey-bar type lattice of metal pipe that robots could climb on.

As for the field surface, I think carpet is pretty good...plywood lends itself to becoming dusty and slippery, and I shudder to think what sand and dirt could do if it got inside the motors, gears, sensors, and speed controllers (and it inevitably will get inside). If FIRST used a surface that allowed more traction, there would probably be a lot more teams that would stall and blow their motors.

-Ian Mackenzie
Woburn Robotics
http://www.team188.com

I want a game with more parts to be played... this year we had goal, ball, and hybred robots- I WANT MORE :)

I think the game should have difficulty levels. A simple task should be at the heart of it, something even the rookiest of teams can do (like push a goal around). Then maybe something most teams will be able to do (balls maybe). Then I want something nearly impossible! For instance, instead of sitting in your endzone for points maybe you should climb stairs or a ladder onto a raised platform.

Imagine this year, goals are worth 20 points when lifted into a foot high platform, of course some sort of ramp would be needed to get them back down (and the goals would be exposed to danger) but wow, the design challenge.

I'm a fan of 2 v 2, otherwise the fields will become to large. I like the playing field and robot sizes now (a bit bigger on the field side wouldn't hurt).


I also like lifting balls onto high goals.

Here is my idea:


same playing field, 10 feet longer (all carpeted, maybe tile or something smooth). The extra 5 feet on each side of the field will be reserved for a platform- a platform with 2 levels, first level is half a foot off the ground, second a foot above that. Robots will start at ground level in front of these platforms. The game is played for 2 mins, ending on top of the first platform is worth 10 points, the second one is worth 25 points.

There are 2 goals same as this year with something on top of the center pvc to allow a 2001 big ball to sit on it. There is 1 line down the middle of the field, each goal entirely on your side of the field is worth 10 points. There are footballs along the sides of the field. Every football in a goal on your side of the field is worth 2 points. There are 4 big balls in the corners, on the high platform 5 feet away from where the robots start. These balls are color coded! Red balls start on the blue side, vice-versa. Each one of these balls your teams color scored on the thing on top of the goal is worth 15 points, each big ball somehow otherwise supported by the goal is worth 5 points.

Qualification points: the winner recieves thier score plus 2 times the losers score.
Elimination: 2 or 3 matches are played, the team with the highest qualification points is the winner.





That game is way to complecated but wouldn't it be fun to play? :)

Greg

My thoughts on designing a new game are all over the place and way too incoherent. So instead of putting an entire game together here's my outline on some specific things that need to be addressed.

Ready for TV
I think this should be FIRST's number one priority. FIRST's goal is to get their message across to as many people as possible. If they really want to change the culture of America they need their product to reach more people. Television is the natural medium for this.

I was watching CNN the other day, and they were showing a story on a FIRST team. It was a great piece, but they never explained this year's game, saying that it was too complicated. This is not good.

Now here's the challenge, designing a game that is simple enough for a TV audience to figure out in 30 seconds, but strategically complicated enough to challenge all the teams. I mean, if FIRST made next year's game a race it'd be easy to understand, but most strategy would be taken out of the game.

What I would like to see is game similar in nature to that of 1999, back when we had the puck and the floppies. From most people I've talked to, it seems that was the game that was easiest for a non-FIRST person to understand. The "king of the hill" idea is simple and very visual.

The Playing Field

After two years of flat fields I think it's time that we change things up a bit. I loved the ramp in 2000, and the puck in '99. I think that it'd be really exciting and challenging if then field had various types of obstacles (such as ramps and ditches). There's been talk about using dirt or water for the playing field. I know this idea sounds exciting, but I don't think it's very feasible. Try getting a rookie team to build a swimming pool to practice in. =)

The Playing Pieces

I think it's time to take a break from balls. Don't remove them from the game completely, rather make them the "easy" pieces. For example make balls worth 1 point, and another piece, say a donut worth 5 pts.

The Scoring System

This goes back to the TV point. The scoring system must be made simple and clear. It would be great if we could finally have a real time scoring system. People just have a hard time adjusting to FIRST's end game scoring system. It goes against what they're used to.

Also, I think it's neccessary to provide more uniformity between qualifying and elimination matches. In both 2000 and 2002, the qualifying and elimnation matches have been two totally different games. This is a result of the "three times your opponents score" rule. Personally, I like this rule. I think it keeps things exciting. Unfortunately it's hard to the two rounds in synch while using it. Seeding the teams based on winning percentage may alleviate this problem. This way you're rewarded in the prelims on what your rewarded for in the elims, winning. All ties would be broken by QP's. Since their would be many teams with the same record, QP's would still be very important.

The Final Picture

OK, here's what I've come up with. I hope it makes sense. The diagram I tossed in should help.

There are two types of scoring pieces in the game. 1 pt. balls (size undetermined) and 10 pt. donuts. The balls are scored by placing them in the 6 ft. high baskets at the corners of the field, while the donuts are scored by placing them over the 6ft. high poles. Each alliance has their own basket and pole which is on the opposite side of the field from their starting position (not mentioned on the diagram).

The donuts are found in a 1 ft. deep ditch in the field.

At the centre of the field there is a 2ft. ramp leading up to a platform. The platform has room for one robot. If a robot finishes the match on top of the platform the alliance's score is tripled. If a robot finishes the match on the ramp, then alliance's score is doubled.

This game is not as simple to understand as I planned. I guess I just completely contradicted by whole simple for TV speech. Whoops. This game has a bunch of problems, mainly the centre platform being to dangerous (i.e. robots falling off), and the ditch being too hard to construct.

Oh well, it's a start.

Comments, Suggestions, Flames... Send them my way.

- Karthik

I opine main focus for next year's game should be speed and precision with opportunities for robot autonomy. This year's game put too much emphasis on traction, remove that emphasis and various other surfaces become viable. Maybe something really slick that allows only minimal traction. Then rules of mass and inertia become important.

The game should be one of scoring objects, such that once objects scored they cannot be unscored. This would put the emphasis on the speed and precision. There should be rules for contact, maybe like contact is regulated in basketball.

Make it spectator friendly.

Rope would be an interesting alternative
 

Sorry Dave, I know that you wanted specific designs for games, but this is my one item to address. I believe that rope would be a wonderful material to incorporate into a FIRST competition. You might have a wire or rope strung across the playing field for robots to climb on (I hesitate to say "zip line" across), ropes for robots to pull on to lift things, or ropes that serve as obstacles that robots must traverse. It is a material that is strong (please include heavy wire in the category of rope), easily and cheaply (relatively) attained, and also has a real world type appeal to it.

~Tom Fairchild~

I like the idea in 2000 of different colored balls for different points, a simple robot could go after just the one ball that is worth much more than say 10 of the regular color, then if you wanted a super harvester you can get all of the regular kind. I have to believe the field will stay flat and carpeted, the same size just because of the investment. I doubt any gym would want any other surface as well as the build areas that many school and buisness use to make the field. I can bet on kee-clamp bars somewhere on the field, I would like a kind of mountain (maybe 2 or 3 ft high) in between with some different angles maybe this is the plywood part without carpeting so your traction is different on different areas of the field. Maybe even some sort of blocking devices that the first robot to them can flip up a block for the other side and force them to take another route across the field. Definately no time multipliers and figure out a way for the 3x loser score to also have some effect on the finals, otherwise next year shouldn't we all build final bots? I thought hanging on the bar was really cool. Whatever the scoring device is, don't make it designed for tug of wars.

Another suggestion
 

A cutthroat-type game would be great - 4 robots on the field at a time, but each one is paired with every other robot for a third of the match. That would make for some interesting strategies.

:( The balls used in 2000 and 2001 are terrible to work with. Most of them are not even round!!

:) The carpet is great, most teams already have it and it is very good to work it. For sure there will be no dirt, ice or any other surface with loose little pieces that may enter your robot, or leave your robot dirty.

:) A very positive thing in 2001 was the possibility of a robot that works only as a helper, helping others to cross or balance on the bridge, but without scoring balls or anything else. Just helping.
The next game could have a very dificult challenge (as difficult as balancing on a bridge holding goals that have big balls on it) in each side of the field (one for red and one for blue) that only an incredible robot would do alone but two robots working together would do it nicely.

:cool: The drivers should stay in the middle of the largest side of the field, not the smallest one (the way it is), so they could be closer to the robot in a bigger part of the game.

:cool: I like the idea of a rope, bar or steel cable where the robots have to hang AND move on it. The robots would have to cross the field just interacting with this long horizontal "wire" without touching the floor. I hope you like my drawing :D

My game:

2 teams of 3 bots on a rectangular piece of metal. Behind the bots is a large basket with nets surrounding it. The object is to get to the center and pick up either a ball or something light and carry it back to your basket. Think about it this way: A drone from starcraft picks up some minerals and brings it back to the nexus. Its similar to this years game except no zones and it is an all out melee. There need to be some sort of hazards on the field either to disable the bots or to hamper their movement. I don't want this becoming a battlebots scenario but with no harmful items, the game gets kind of slow. A thing about the baskets: they can be moved. A bot could pick them up or drag them across the field. In order to score points the basket has to be moved to the opposite end of the field and the balls have to be released by lever on the side of the basket. These balls or other tangeble objects are to be tallied at the end of the 3 minute match. The reason for three bots: a scooper, a defender and a carrier. You can also think of this game as soccer in that the bot has to get by the "goalie" bot to score. Another strategy could be for another team to go and release the lever as the balls are being moved across the field. The scoring is so: 3 points for balls and 5 points for bots starting in their original spot. This spot is designated by a 3' by 3' square with led lights around it. There are no multiplying losers scores and the team score youre team gets is what u get. Also there is the idea of a tether above the arena where a robot could climb across and toss balls into the baskets below. This game is most likely impossible to create but it is a thought for a prototype for next year. This years game was ok, not great and could definitely use some major rules changes. Anyways this is my 2 cents. To post more...

Teedoff101

Re: Enough with balls
 

THAT IDEA RULES! It combines my two most favorite things in the world. HOCKEY AND FRISBEE! There is a sport that is like football and is played with frisbees. It is called Ultimate Frisbee. There is even a world championship for it. Anyway, if the new game had Frisbees, the name could be Frisbee Fury or something like that. One problem though, if robots throw frisbees they would have to put up a mesh netting of some sort because the frisbees could fly into the audience. this would remove human players from the game. How cool would it be though to see robots throwing frisbees. You could have ones that had an arm that pulled back and launched it or one that uses wheels and motors to zip the frisbee across the field.

One of the engineers was talking to eric, and he said the FIRST has thrown around the idea of traffic cones as scoring pieces. They are pretty heavy and kinda hard to pick up. That would be fun.

autonomy would be good
 

I would like to see some sort of autonomy in the game. Something that would add some programming and EE to the heavy concentration in ME that FIRST is now.
I would like to see the robot have to pick up something not round and build something. Perhaps you should have some sort of boxes that can be grabbed and stacked. Robots would have to collect some number of these and build something on the field. I know that teams have been big the last couple of years and real autonomy would be hard to do if robots had to cooperate to build something.
Teams would get points for the number of block they moved to their scoring zone. They would get additional points for building different structures.
You could also have the robot build a structure over an obstruction. For example have one robot from each team start on each side. Each team attempts to build a bridge over a pit. After the bridge is built the robots move items from one side to the other with each team being able to use only their own bridge.
In any case, the rules for qualifing and final rounds should be the same. You should not have a robot that is only so-so in the qualifing rounds be an unstoppable monster (no offence Beast :0)) in the final rounds.

How about a game where the robot has to throw or shoot things into a goal to score. The goal could be set up like a giant skee-ball target. Put a height restriction on the robots so that can't raise up to a goal and just dump balls in. I like the idea of having different scoring modifiers by shooting from different levels. Lastly NO TETHERS means NO TETHERS!!!!!!

just some ideas...
 

With that in mind, I'd like to see a game where there are multiple diverse tasks that score the same points. These tasks could be "exclusive" in that doing one would make doing the other impossible. For example, placing a bowling pin on top of a small table, or moving the small table to a different platform and inverting it before placing it down.

The trick is to balance the tasks in difficulty with the point rewards.

What about having a large visual barrier (or a tunnel, perhaps) in the field with an object on the other side (in the tunnel) that must be retrieved. Then include cameras and sensors in the kit that could that feed information back to the operators? This is a (small) step toward autonomous robots, but doesn't require that much more complexity in terms of programmming.

I also very much like the idea of tasks that can only be performed by both (or two of three, or all three) alliance members contributing. Perhaps two 130 lb pressure switches in different places on the field will release balls, or move some barrier or something like that...


Some things I'd like to avoid:

1. Multipliers. Multipliers for achieving some task will usually lead to huge differentation in scores between teams. I can think of no other event where scores for matches (2001) varied between less than 10 and over 700!

2. A task that is worth 10 times another task (unless it is ten times EASIER). Last year, I never saw a black ball lifted from the field.

3. A task that, if accomplished, dominates the game. For example, this year alliances that were able to control the goals were able to dominate. It didn't matter how good your robot was at moving balls if you had no goal to put them in.

Haven't thought of a complete game yet...

-Mr. Van

When designing next year's game, FIRST needs to decide two factors before proceeding.
1. How important is it that the over all winner be the best alliance?
2. Is being TV friendly essential?

If being TV friendly is important, you want a scoring system that accurately tallies points in real time. The audience should not be watching the match and simultaneously trying to count the score.

If you are going to have balls/frisbees/pucks placed/shot into goals, there needs to be no chance of "unscoring." You probably only want one ball (or a small number of balls) which can be scored repeatedly. Multipliers would be a "no-no."

If teams are going to compete in alliances (red and blue) and if the playing field is going to have preferences for red and blue scoring, then those areas of the field should be clearly marked with that color. The alliance station should be more clearly demarked than with the current flashing light. Perhaps the diamond plate can be painted red or blue.

You also want the best alliances possible in your elimination matches. The big TV payoff will come in the hard fought final matches

2. The current qualifying system does not create the best eight alliances. The random factor can bias a team's ranking by +- 10 positions (at least). Although, on average, the best teams float to the top, one unlucky pairing can keep a contender out of the elimination rounds.

I would recommend a three stage competition, instead of the current two stage competition.
1. Day one is qualifying (just like now). At the end of the day, the top 40 ranked teams can compete on day two. Lowest score is not dropped.

2. The top 40 teams continue to compete in randomly paired alliances through the morning of day two. You should be able to get three more matches per team in. The lowest score is dropped at this point. At the end of this phase of the competition, the top 24 teams are retained and go on to elimination matches.

3. Selection occurs as before, but from the top 24 teams.

Another, unrelated thought. It might be interesting to divide the teams at each competition into Red and Blue divisions. You get partnered within your division and play against the other division, exclusively. Perhaps, at Nationals, the divisions would partner within the division and oppose the other divisions (IE Curie versus Einstein, Archimedes, and Newton).

Andrew
Team 356

Although I don't agree with the rest of the post - The top eight teams in each division are usually among the top 25% of robots at a comp anyway, and there's no way (or reason) to eliminate luck entirely - I do like the idea of being partnered within your division and playing those teams outside your division.

It would give everyone a team to root for in each match. The trouble with it is that it would probably make the scores more random, not less.

Here's my idea for a game:

Six robots are on the field, in three alliances, for a 2v2v2 setup. The field is a triangle, approximately 48 feet by 48 feet (twice the current size). Alliances start at each of the corners of the triangle.

In the center is a somewhat triangle-shaped platform approximately 24"-30" high. At each corner is a set of stairs with ball bins on either side, and on each flat side is a cutout and a climbing pole. On the deck of this platform lies three goals.

The object is simple: score balls, and get onto the platform. Each ball in a floor bin is worth 1 point and each ball in the platform goal is 2 points. There would be 20 soccer balls on each side of the field to do so. A robot on the stairs or elevated on the pole is worth 3 points, and each robot on the platform is 5 points.

While designing this game, I came across a few problems, as well as a few added possibilities. To try to prevent robots from being knocked off there would be a 6" barrier on the pole sides. The stairs would probably be open, but could possibly have a barrier, too.

Another possibility is allowing robots to drive under the platform, if they are under a certain height. This might depend on the strength of the platform. If this worked, 3 points for being under the platform is a possiblity.

If you think of any ideas, comments, or criticism of my design, feel free to post something. If you really think this idea is terrible, or if you think it's the best thing since sliced bread, I want to know.

Also, attached is a drawing of my field plan.

Ah.. see, the problem with using 1-point balls of basically the same size is that teams like Aztechs and RAGE have created such good designs for picking up the balls that half of the teams will try to copy them next year, if they can.

If you use a different medium like donuts or discs or oblong balls, such have been suggested, everyone will be forced to come up with a new solution to a new problem next year, which is really the true aim of FIRST.

well...
 

I definitely like the idea of enabling robots and allow them to move for 10 or 15 seconds before the drivers controls are enabled. That would make us think more about sensors and that kind of stuff and require some programming, that would be interesting...

Also, I like the ice idea, but I think it would be hard to make sure that the ice doesn't get to warm from robots giving off heat and moving on it. And water would be every robots dead.

Dirt, nope, harms a robot....

I like he rope idea: Let the robots move along a rope to reach anothe part of the playing field where they can also climb onto boxes of different height to score more points.

I like two robots going against two; four against four (i believe it was tried earlier didn't work as well); and there should be some teamwork, 2 against two this year was very good.
That's general things...

I'm working on a complete game and rules and will post it when it is ready.

the cure to the FIRST soccar ball problem, FOOTBALLS! :)

I like the idea of enabling code execution before driver controls are enabled, but that would require a re-design of the first controller thats already been redesigned for next year.

Re: well...
 

A ship in a harbor is safe, my friend.
And so are robots in dirt.


Wait - that's not how that goes...


My point is that sure dirt harms robots, but air harms robots. If you want a robot that will never break, then make a pretend robot, (or call it "Pioneer" or "Voyager", that seems to have a good effect). I think that we should give the FIRST teams a chance to surprise us, by throwing a complete curveball like a new playing surface.

And you guys have all taken a look at Dave's story about how well robots not designed for water handled a water-covered field, haven't you? I'm sure that robots designed for dirt could handle a dirt field at least as well.


Speaking of - Dave still hasn't told us his idea. Whatdya got?

Neat Question
 

How fun...
I am new to FIRST this year, so I have NO idea what was going on in the last several years... but, here is what I would like to see someday...

- More computer control (few seconds at the beginning or END of the match with no human control.) Software code is cheap, even small teams can afford to write code.

- Use different objects - some teams are WAY ahead in figuring out how to play with a ball. (I know, my team didn't even try to pick up balls this year.)

- tug 'o' war is boring

- fast paced, fast motion is fun to watch

OK... so here is my game:

-rectangle field
-2 teams at each end (working together)
-wall several feet tall, but with a gap under it. (Think low vollyball net)
-balls (or whatever items you wish) in devices along the side of the field that can be emptied into the field (pull a rope, reach in a grab, open a door, hit a button, use your imagination)
-goal of game is to chuck and fling and push as many balls (or other items) onto the other teams side. Kinda like a twisted vollyball / dodgeball match. You can toss over the wall, or under the wall. Teams can lower shields to prevent balls being pushed under. Balls can be tossed over the wall (plexiglass wall would be cool).

No rules about what side of the wall your bot has to stay on. (collect balls in a storage bag and cross to the other side?) Rookie teams could still push balls under, and make shields. Older teams could access more balls high up in the air, and chuck balls over the wall quickly.

OK, I'm done.... I got long winded AGAIN...

My two cents
 

First of all, I believe that traction has become way too important of a feature. It started mildly in 2001, with teams really getting the hang of it, and then progressed into 2002 with some absolutely insane traction devices. I say, make people learn and take away their learned traction skills - put linoleum down on the FIRST floor.

You could get those really really long, wide pieces of linoleum usually used in cheap bathrooms to coat the floor, and place it across the field. That way, teams would have to rethink their options traction-wise.

Here's my idea for a game:

The game is 2 on 2. The playing field is divided into two zones, each covered with 10 to 20 PVC struts that have a base to them (think traffic cone FIRSTified). There are also two goals on each end of the field, with a large platform on top of them that you can balance struts on (7 or more feet in the air). The idea is that for every strut standing in your side of the field by the end of the match, you get 2 points. For every strut supported by your robot (not in contact with the ground), you get 1 point. For every strut knocked over, you get -1 point. Managing to balance a struct on the goal on the opposite end of the field nets you 5 points each for your alliance.

The idea is to space the struts on the field so that robots must be very maneuverable to get around them. Maybe you could cover each strut with retroreflectors at their top so you could have "Autoavoid" as you maneuver your way through the struts.

That was my random ranting for tonight.. man i must be tired :)

Andrew and verdeyw talked about one division playing against another. That would require scouting of both divisions. If it happened this year in nationals, there would be about 150 teams to scout!!


Jeff Waegelin's idea looks very nice, but I found three little problems:

1. If they use soccer balls again many teams would copy ideas (this was already said).

2. Six robots is too much, mainly because there are three alliances. There would be too many things happening at the same time. That's not "TV friendly" and it's very hard for the referees to watch everything.

3. There's no scoring for robots that just walk around or are dead. In 2000 there were 5 points for robots on the ramp, in 2001 there was the end zone and the stretcher and this year we had the home zone. Some teams have serious problems and have to take an important mechanism from the robot, and moving around is the only thing they can do. There must be a way for them to score points too, I think.

I thought that the three alliance idea was interesting, but the same general idea from my plan could be adapted to a two-alliance format.

It would also be possible to use different field objects, like footballs or cubes or something. Maybe we could have soccer balls, cubes, and pyramids (think 3-D FIRST logo)?

I agree that some scoring for robots that just move around is necessary, but I didn't think through it enough to decide on a way to do that. Perhaps being in the starting area could be worth a few points, too.

The Wacky Warehouse Game
 

FIRST things FIRST, I'd like to compliment FIRST for designing a very good game this year.

Second, here is a 30 second made-for-television explanation of the Wacky Warehouse game.

======================
*****Editor's note: Bobby is visiting the Lone Star Regional with his words in {brackets}. This should be read veeeeeeeery slowwwwwwly in a deep Southern accent.

Bobby, welcome to the FIRST Robotics Competition. {Thank you for inviting me :-)} The competition this year is officially called Wacky Warehouse, although many have started calling it Tipsy Tubs because of the Rubbermaid containers that the robots have to stack on top of one another. {What is the object of the game?} Well, do you see the 30 red, blue, and green Rubbermaid containers, 10 of each, on the field? {Yes.} The two robots on the left, the red team indicated by red flashing lights on their robot, get 1 point for the container if it is stacked on top of another container, 2 points if it is stacked 3 high, 3 points if it is stacked 4 high and so on. {Is it the same for the blue team on the right with the blue and green containers?} Exactly! {Interesting, so if you stack the green ones you're making points for both teams and if you just stack your color, you just get points for your team.} {Why would you ever stack green containers?} Because, Bobby, you are trying to maximize your point total so you'll seed high. Stack a couple of green containers low and then top it off with one of your own color. Neat, 'eh. {Wow, that's taking quick thinking and cooperation to a new high!} {I can't wait to see a match}

*****Editor's note: Red, Blue, & Green Rubbermaid containers have the tops glued on and are placed systematically around an arena similar to this year's. Do the containers have something in them to weight them? You'll have to wait until you get the rules :-). Also, something is in the middle of the field ... kinda looks like two walls.

Here goes Bobby. (Booooot da bot booooooot da bot ... CHARGE! "THERE OFF!") You see team 1211 on the red alliance went straight for those green containers and is collecting 3 of them. Wow, team 118 on the blue alliance is trying for the same tubs but can't get them from 1211. Oh, there's team 1457, on the red team, picking up 4 red tubs. Now 1211 is making a pyramid out of the three green ones. Wow, 1457 is going to stack the four red tubs on top of the pyramid. Unbelievable, that top tub is worth 5 points. Team 118 is just stacking blue tubs on top of green ones. Wow, that's a bunch of 1 point tubs. Uh oh, here goes team 1289 trying to knock down the red team's pyramid. What a block by 457. (Mahhhhhhhhhhhhhh ... that's the buzzer) {Wow, that's close}
======================

If you're still interested, here is a quick list of potential twists to this game.

-Have two walls in the middle of the field with 2 openings. Inside this "room" there are a bunch of tubs. A stack of tubs, worth a lot of points, blocks each opening so teams have a choice: 1) Go over the wall and don't disturb the gimme points, 2) Carefully move the tubs so you don't knock them over, or 3) Bust through the tubs knocking them over knowing you will get more points by not wasting time saving the gimme points.

-Have sensors in the tubs to determine real-time point total.

-Must have tubs in the human player station. Tough for a human player to throw a Rubbermaid container, huh. I'm sure we'll find some way to accurately project them.

-I love the idea of having 15 seconds of autonomy at the beginning of a match. Therefore, have sensor tape on the containers with 15 seconds of autonomy.

-Have the Rubbermaid containers and/or the robots placed "randomly" (selected from a finite set of configurations) around the field so the first move is not a given. Example, this year you could have had a few different configurations of the goals (across the field [as they were], long-wise on the field, etc.).


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

The good:
-Rubbermaid containers are readily available and not easily destroyed
-The wall is easily constructed out of building materials
-The scoring is simple
-Score can change quickly (some may view this as a bad thing)
-There is lots of offense (stacking the tubs)
-There is lots of defense (knocking tubs over and defending your stacks)
-Game is analogous to industrial automation
-Containers are challenging to manipulate
-Rubbermaid might pitch in a few million for team sponsorships

The bad:
-Rubbermaid containers are difficult to throw
-Inevitably, the containers will not be stacked like they were intended. Maybe the scoring value of the tub is height off the ground and not touching a robot.



Thanks for reading about my Wacky Warehouse game. If this game is ever implemented, I'd like to buy a few of the 'bots to manage my garage. Since I have everything in Rubbermaid containers, it would be nice just to tell my new Wacky Warehouse Robot to "Please go get the Christmas decorations."

Take care,
Lucien

Thoughts on Variable Game and Scoring
 

After three years of observing FIRST competitions, I offer some thoughts on a number of ways to make a FIRST game more challenging from a design perspective. I personally like the idea of combining variable (pseudo random) game piece location with an initial uncontrolled (i.e., no human control) portion (i.e. 30 seconds of the 2 minutes).

By changing the location of the game pieces (selection from a set of configurations just prior to the match), it would greatly increase the requirement for team coordination/strategy, as well as limiting the benefits of single function designs.

Combining the varying locations with the uncontrolled portion would force detection and other technoligies to be used.

The attached PDF contains 6 different goal locations, and 7 different ball locations (notionally, just for one of the goal locations).

Another change that would help make the design/competition needs for the qualifying rounds and the finals more consistent (i.e., unlike this year when ball handlers lead the qualifying, but goal handlers were the dominant force in the finals) is to revise the scoring somewhat. If you make an assumption that the best matchs are those that where there is only one point difference between the high and low score, the one could conclude that there should be similar/or equal qualifying benefit to the winners/loosers of a 50-49 match as there is to 15-14 one. To accomplish that, one could change the scoring to reflect the difference between the high and low score rather than just a multiplier of low score. For instance, the winner might get 125 points less the difference between the high and low score. The looser might get 50 points, less the difference. If there is a need to reflect raw scoring talent, then an additional factor based on combined score could also be introduced.

... just food for thought ... not that one would reuse this year's game, but as the design progresses for next year's, some alternatives to the more traditional approach could yield some interesting results.

Malcolm

One of the things that bothers me about the games now is that all of the points are right infront of the robots. The goals were straight ahead, the balls to the left and right. So all we had to do was hit the gas and stear to the left and right. Question, what if we put the scoring behind or below/above the robots? Now, here is my solution, what if the robots were on a 2 foot podeum, the surface area is the max dimension of the robot allowed. There will be a slope down to the front of the scoring field. behind the robots will be 10 weights. Each with varrieing weights. Each one will count a certin amount of points. A green weight, 10 lbs, would count 10 pts. A blue weight, a 40 lber, would be 40 pts. The robots would have to pick them up and put them into goals, which are positioned to the direct left and right of the podeums you start on. They will be 3 ft wide and will be square shapped. The robots will only be able to push them, not latch onto them. There will be a 1 ft. tall piece of wood that you would have to put the weights on. The goals will weigh 30 lbs, and thus, count 30 points. Each robot will count, nothing. This will be more intresting because there will be a more fight for the death, rather than a mad sprint and leave 5 secs on the clock. Each match will be 2:30 mins. It will be a 2 vs. 2 like this year. There will be four goals total. 20 weights in total. The weights will range from 1 lbs to 50 lbs. You can pick up the goals by a.) sliding a fork lift thing under it to pick it up or b.) pick it up by a handal on top. The middle of the field will be the scoring zone, but there will only be enough room for 3 of the 4 goals, to make it intresting. Each goal will be colored and the weights in that goal will count for the appropreate team. More details to come soon along with photos.

teams
 

I liked this years 2 X 2 mode for game play. it'd also be really cool to see 2 x 2 x 2 (just for the added challenge of playing against two alliances). the way things were scored this year were also much better than last year (it was much easier to keep track of and make strategies if you don't have an advanced degree in calculus:cool: ). I also liked the idea of three dimensional playing field (if only that one side is higher than the other and you need to be able to drive uphill to get to it). some of the robots this year and last year had pretty high centers of mass because they were so tall. if they had to go uphill (as I would like to see), this center of mass would tip these such tall robots over. if you keep the same size requirements as this year (I didn't see a problem with them), teams will have to think of how they distribute weight to keep them from falling over. I would also like to see a game where the balance between torque and speed is essential to the success in the game.

anyway, that's just my two cents.
Simon

p.s. stupid washers!

What If
 

What if there were two competitions at the regional. One for the younger and inexperinced teams which would be easier and one for the more experinced teams that have been doing this for a few years. Even though it would be harder to organize and develop, i know it would have been great for us because we still would have had the experience, just not with teams that were going to destroy us. Also, i think that there should be a limit on how far a team can go to be at a regional. i now there are other conflicts that do not allow for this, but it would be cool to see happen. Finally, whatever the game is going to be, there should be a budget on how much you are allowed to spend on everything. This includes everything brought to regionals and nationals.

Here it is.

Couple thoughts
 

I would like to see a gridwork of low obstacles across the floor of the playing field (I am visualizing 2.5" PVC pipes). The bots could either cross over the grid or go through the "maze" to cross the field. I like the idea of some type of smooth flooring. Maybe there is a cheap form of industrial tile that would stand up to our pounding.

I would also really like to see a game that emphasises precision in the scoring. The scoring goals (whatever they are) could have retroreflective tape so that the control guys could use their automation skills.

ps
The idea of frisbees is cool

Here is a simple game that would be challenging, yet easy for the audience to observe:

2 robots vs 2 robots: This has just worked best

Like this year, there are scoring zones. They are round and are elevated slightly off the ground by maybe like an inch or two (so you have to drive/climb up on them). There would be 5 of them, two on each side and one in the middle like this:

X X

X

X X

The middle scoring zone would add 20 pts to whatever team has a goal or robot (or both) completely on the zone (no part touching ground) and the other four would just be worth 10 pts.

Now, you may have noticed I mentioned goal. There are two of them, one located on each side of the middle zone. Unlike this year, they are a constant red and blue. So any balls put in the red goal, count for the red team etc.

Balls would be placed on each side of the field, and some would also be in the player stations.

-----------------------------------------

I like the setup of this game because it combines several aspects from previous years that I love, they are:

1. Putting balls in goal
2. Having obstacles to drive/climb on
3. Moveable goals
4. The incentive to be in more than one place at once

Of course, during qual matches the winner gets three times the loser’s score etc.

This is the type of game I would like to see next year =)

Hmmm, weird spacing... The X in the center should be centered between the other two sets of X.

Here is a side photo.

OK, I asked for it, and I'm getting it!

There are some great ideas in this thread! Keep 'em coming! Every one of these is being read and reviewed, and the right people will be extracting some of the central concepts for more consideration. Thanks to everyone for your input (and don't stop now!).

-dave lavery
FIRST Executive Advisory Board

My Thoughts
 

I didn't want to post until i had a complete game but after getting really sick and not being able to think much I decided to at least post what I had thought of so here it is:

*same size playing feild, FIRST invested in these fields, lets put them to work!
*Carpet, but with a "sandtrap" in the middle of the field. There will be three zones, the middle or no mans zone will be full of packing peanuts to act as a less messy sandtrap. The two end zones ( red and blue) will be home to teams.
*4 teams at a time in a 2v2 setup, causes teamwork with fastthinking strategizing!
*To cross from one zone to another you must go through no man land by means of the packing peanuts or shaky bridge made out of pvc.
*Playing objects will be suspended on the outsides of the bridge, you must dislodge and recover these to your respective goals, playing objects will be plastic rings lined with retroreflective tape along with the bottom of the bridge, so you can "sense" the objects when they are hard to see.
*You have two goals, one in your starting zone that is low to the ground and one in your opponents zone that is high above the ground, overshadowing their goal.


This is where my brain stopped functioning and fevers kicked in.... If nothing else mayeb I triggered a better idea in someone elses head...

I don't have a complete game yet, but sometimes I think about parts of it.

What if there is a "door" where robots can easily pass through but they can't come back? There could be a more difficult way to come back, and different things on each side of the door, so the teams would have to strategy about when crossing the door. There are thousands of way to build such mechanism. My simple idea is attached in a gif file.

Anyone like it and want to build a complete game using it?

I think it would be fun to see a playing field that was lower in the center than at either end. The slope would be great enough that goals would roll to center field (a position of lesser or no point value) if left alone. Also, I'd like to see goals that are not latchable. It's not entertaining to watch a robot lock up a goal (or three) and sit on it.

One last bit, I really liked the Wacky Warehouse game that was proposed in an earlier post. =)

-Joel

I also am a fan of Wacky Warehouse.

Can I change my answer?

I just like the idea of having rubbermaid tubs stacked up to the ceiling. It's so simple, yet there can be so many great robots built for it.

I agree with the wearhouse... maybe use box's or some other sort of cube thats regularly shaped (easier to deal with and such). As long as they are at least 2ft by 2ft (i would like to see robots stacking 4X4 foot boxes). Having the stacking mod would make strategys worth thinking through- 2 stacked boxes are worth 2 points, 3 stacked boxes are worth 4, 4 stacked boxes are worth 6, 5 worth 10, 6 worth 15

i can imagine a robot stacking something 50 feet high :) they might have to make the nats tents bigger with a game like that.

this is my second addition to this thread but this addition is much beter tan my frist.

My idea for a game is relativly simple. i really like the idea of suspended objects. so i thought of instead of having suspended robots why not suspend some type of goal 4-5 feet in the air on some zip lines. these zip lines are sloped upward towards the center of the field where they might be 9-10 feet. the mission would be to put some type of object into these suspended goals wether it be a ball or bean bag something like that. you can then slide the goal along the zip line to different points. there are different coloured areas of the zip line which would multiply your score depending on which coloured zone the goal is in at the end of the match the goals would be almost frictionless on the zip line so iif you were to let them go they would fall part way back down the line. to add a bit of difficulty there could be obsatcles of incresing dificulty as you approach the center of the field these could even be incorperated as a secondary scoring possibilty according to how many obstacles you can navigate through or over. the only thing i couldn't think of was incorperating a human player.

some smaller details of the game are:
1) same size field and robot starting locations as this year.
2) the control zones be moved to the center of the long side of the field.
3)surface be carpet to stick with tradition.
4)same # of people allowed in the control zone.

Thought I'd throw my two cents in here goes:

balls(worth 2 points a piece in a goal), about twice the size of this past year

goals - 5 points if on the respective alliance sides. 20 points if on the floor of the respective end zone.

robot end zone -10 points if they are on the floor of the endzone at the end of the match

there three poles one to get from platform 1 to platform 2 and two to get into respective end zones

a picture would help
Field overview
side view including the light(wieght) goal

Another game idea:

2x2 robots (red and blue alliances)

Two minute matches

Playing field: 22'x44' (same as this year)

In the center of the field, a perimeter made from 4x6 boards, 15' square. Around the top of this perimeter, aluminum tubing, with about a 12" gap between. (This is the same "wall" as the barrier in 2001.) Call this "no man's land."

In the center of "no man's land," a movable goal. The goal cannot be moved outside the fence.

At each of the two edges of "no man's land," on the short side of the field, a teeter totter bridge, about 32"-36" wide. Initially, one bridge is tottered "red's" way and the other is tottered "blue's" way.

The area in front of the blue alliance station is the blue zone. The area in front of the red alliance station is the red zone.

Also in the blue zone are several red "balls" and a blue "flag." In the red zone are several blue "balls" and the red "flag." The flag would be a movable object, perhaps a heavy one. (A "ball" could be a soccer ball, a football, a traffic cone, a frisbee, a rubbermaid container...)

If you want a human player, you could put several blue balls in blue's player station and several red balls in red's player station.

Scoring:
At the end of two minutes, after everything has settled, the score would be:
Red Alliance:
1 point for each red "ball" in the goal
15 points for the blue flag in the red zone
5 points for each blue robot in the red zone

Blue Alliance:
1 point for each blue "ball" in the goal
15 points for the red flag in the blue zone
5 points for each red robot in the blue zone

Note: robots and flags do not count for either team when on the bridges or in no man's land.

Overview:
All points for either team are held in the opponents' zone. In order to score anything, you have to go to the opponents' zone and either get your "balls" or capture your opponents' flag. But, when you are over there, you count for them.

Another diabolical idea:
It would be great if the balls were in a dispenser and the robot had to toggle the dispenser in order to get a ball.

Rough drawing of playing field

............................................|----------------------|
b = blue robot.......................|.b...b..............F F.........................|
FF = blue flag........................|..................... ..............................|
............................................|..... ..............................................|
............................................|xx... ............................................|
x = red balls..........................|xx................ ...............................|
............................................|..... ..............................................|
............................................|..... ..............................................|
............................................|..... .........||============||.............|
............................................|BBB.. .....||....................||.......bbb|
............................................|BBB.. .....||.......GG........||.......bbb|G = goal
bridge - toggled to red........|bbb........||.......GG........||...... BBB| bridge - toggled to blue
............................................|bbb.. ......||....................||......BBB|
............................................|..... .........||============||.............|
............................................|..... ..............................................|
............................................|..... ..............................................|
............................................|..... ..........................................xx|
............................................|..... ..........................................xx|
............................................|..... ..............................................|
............................................|..... ..............................................|
............................................|..... ..................FF................r....r.|
............................................|----------------------|

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 :)

Here's my idea for a game. I certainly hope I'm not too late, but if I am, oh well... my fault for taking song long.

FIRST Robotics Game Proposal: "REVENGE OF THE ZONE ZEAL"

This game resembles Zone Zeal a lot, but it gets rid of some of the flaws that made it the game somewhat "broken," to use a Magic:The Gathering term, for a few smart teams.

The game consists of two opposing alliances of two (three?) robots each. (As was done this year, I think it's probably best to inform the teams at the beginning of the competition exactly when they're playing and with whom they're playing with and against.) The field is the same size as this year's game, and is broken horizontally into two equal zones - the red zone and the blue zone.

Robots start the game in alternate corners (like this year). There are twenty balls along each side of the field, with each side having ten red and ten blue soccer balls. (The balls are positioned back to back as this year's game was, but the balls on each side are in two lines of ten of opposite colors, red balls are in the blue zone, blue balls are in red.)

In the center of the field are two goals (one in each zone). The cylindrical goals are moveable {try to feign enthusiasm, guys} and are approximately 6' tall and 8' in diameter. The goals are made of plexiglass (or something else transparent for the audience's sake) and have a completely smooth exterior, which makes it very hard grab to the goals since there is nowhere to. So the predominant force for moving goals is by pushing on them. Each goal has a band of blue or red around the top denoting it as that alliance's goal.

Scoring is as follows (for this, assume you're the red team)

1 point = each red ball in the red goal at the end of the game, regardless of the goal's position
5 points = each robot in the blue zone at the end of the game
10 points = having the red goal in the red zone at the end of the game.

A blue ball in the red goal, or the red goal in the blue zone, counts for nothing.

Edit: Forgot to mention... this game would go back to the "evil cruel and nasty" FIRST, so that an object would have to be entirely over the line to count as being in either zone.

There are three black "power balls" on the field - one in each player station and one in the center of the field between the two goals. For each power ball in a goal, the goal's score and all of the balls in it double.

(So if the red goal has five red balls and two power balls in it and is in the red zone at the end of the game...

5 + 10 = 15
15 * 2 * 2 = 60.)

However, if an alliance has all three power balls in it's player station at the end of the game (meaning the blue alliance shoots the power ball to a goal, misses, and the red alliance picks up both power balls on the field and brings them over to the red player station), then they win and the opposing alliance's score for the match will be zero.

The losing team in each match gains 0 qualifying points, while the winning team earns qualifying points equal to the square root of the margin of victory. (Red wins 22-13, 9^ (1/2) = 3.00 QP)


I dunno, just some concept ideas that have been floating around in my head for a while. As I said, I do hope it's not too late ;).

hmm, don't you think that part is a bit overly-complicated? I mean, the 3x-losers-score has had enough complates, but the square root of the margin of win? eh, I think thats a bad idea

Consider yourself challenged
 

I'd like to offer a friendly challenge to everyone. Let's come up with 10 obstacle ideas that when overcome, would be applicable to solving societal problems. Hopefully one day, FIRST spectators will be saying things like, "Wow, the fire department ought to implement a robot like that!" Here are a couple of examples that are fairly obvious with one being right up Dean's alley.

Obstacle: Two flights of stairs with a landing in between (2 steps, a landing, then 2 more steps would be sufficient).
Application for society: As Dean has demonstrated, this would be helpful for physically challenged folks. A very fast stair climbing robot could save lives in a fire.

Obstacle: A door with a standard door knob that is cut off just above the door knob (cutting the door short is to make it a little more spectator friendly).
Application: A robot that could manipulate standard door knobs quickly could be helpful to the physically challenged, fire departments, and bomb squads.


Even if a solution already exists (stair climbing robot for example), it would be interesting to see if the FIRST teams could advance some ideas.

Hopefully, I have helped push this thread toward page 10 so we can reduce Dave's sleep time from 2 hours a night to 1 hour a night. Dave, when your mother said, "Dave, you need your eight hours of sleep," she meant 8 hours a night ... not a week!:p

Please consider yourself challenged,
Lucien

>I'd like to offer a friendly challenge to everyone. Let's come up with 10 obstacle ideas that when overcome, would be applicable to solving societal problems.

Natchez, That is pure genius!

I will list your first 2 and add. Perhaps others will cut and paste to do the same; thereby keeping the list together for easier review.

1-fast stair climbing
2-door knob manipulation/opening (high resistance door as at a commercial establishment-no easy swinging house style doors ;-)
3-Pick semi-fragile items (empty cereal boxes?) off of a high shelf and place them on a lower one.
4-Use standard grocery store shopping carts as the goals.


I am writing this separately to keep the list intact: Here's a crazy idea, have a person on the robot that could do nothing but relay information, no control ability. Now you have to contend with moving all that extra weight. I can see it now, FIRST teams courting the smallest lightest person in the school to join their team.

I can't wait to see this thread grow!

Okay, kids, put down your pens. :)

Okay, not really, but here's my first thoughts -

The game, which is yet to be assigned a super-rad name, is played on a field matching the dimensions of this year's field, just so we can keep those nice folks at FIRST from having one extra thing to do next season. The player stations, however, might need to be slightly rearranged. Might not.

Game time is 2:00. Two alliances of two robots on the field at a time. Blue and red.

2003 Field Plan

2003 Scoring Bin

The game is reminscent of 2000, with two team colored scoring bins on the field, and balls worth varying amounts of pointage scatter about the field. There are, however, several items of note that make this game unique.

First, though, let's start with the basics. Note, please, that the actual numbers of balls on the field can vary some from what's shown. I'd like there to be at least a few more.

Yellow balls = 5 pts.
Green balls = 1 pt.
Red balls = -1 pt.
Robot in Zone = 5 pts.
Two Robots in Zone = 15 pts.
Three Robots in Zone = 20 pts.
Four Robots in Zone = 30 pts.

This requires that the robots be entirely within the zone, so no tethers or other questionable devices.

Also, please keep in mind that the scoring itself could probably use some playbalancing.

Now, the central octagon is formed by a railing that's approximately 3' tall. It is permitted that a robot may pass above or beneath this railing.

Each bin is formed of PVC piping to facilitate easy calculation of the score by the teams and the refs. Each bin is free-swinging about a pivot located high up on its side. As such, any robot that cannot fit below the goal or under the octagon border can pass by, though they'd strongly risk tipping the goal.

Each different point value ball is a unique diameter as well. The goal and 5 pt. balls should be designed to take that no more than 2 can easily fit inside a goal, and also so that 1 pt. balls cannot be inserted past the larger balls. However, the smallest -1 pt. balls can still fit. I expect teams to engineer clever ways around this, but I like this because it makes sprinting for and scoring 5 pt. balls less advantageous than in 2000.

The game is played for 2:00, with any number of different strategies. Finaly qualifying point calculation is still something of a play balance issue. I'm strongly interested in another system similar to this year's multiple of the other alliance. I particularly like the idea of the losing alliance receiving your score, also. This is somewhat difficult to balance, though, because 0's and negative scores are very likely.

What I expect to happen in a typical game scenario might go something like this -

At the start, one blue robot tries to head into the scoring octagon, while the corresponding red robot tries to interfere.

On the other side of the field, the blue robot runs down the line of -1 pt. balls. The other red robot is free to enter the scoring octagon as well.

In the scoring octagon, each of the robots battles over the 3 five (5) pt. balls. Meanwhile, each of their bins are swinging like a pendulum.

From here, so many different things could happen I can't even imagine them. It might be advantageous to dump an opponents bin and collect the points from there, or to empty a bin full of balls to fill it with a smaller, lower scoring group of balls.

It could very advantageous that robots have a way of getting out of the scoring octagon *without* dumping either goal, to facilitate scoring in a robot zone. This could mean that robots get 'trapped' inside.

The world is your oyster :)

If something's not clear, let me know and I'll set the world right :)

Come on Michael!
 

:( Michael, Michael, Michael:(


I'm dissapointed. Have you forgotten to round your decimals to the nearest 10,000th again. Remember its...


1.0000pts
2.0000pts
3.0000pts
5.0000pts

Other than that its pretty good. Keep it up. haha

Eh. It's just an element I'm suggesting.

I like it when two teams who have a really good partnership are able to demonstrate their abilities in the practice rounds, so I personally believe in the school of thought of giving rewards to only the winners.

That said, if two experienced teams come up against two rookie teams without incentive to make it a close game as the current scoring system suggests, they'll demolish them. By doing the square root or something to that extent, it rewards those teams who win the game, but minimizes the effect of multiple blowouts (i.e. winning by 49 nets you only 7 QP).

We could use the natural log of the MOV if you want. ;)

Mike,
I really like the idea of -1 point balls amidst other balls. Such an aspect adds a whole new dimension to any game. It would encourage teams to have mechanisms that distinquish between the different types of balls so it could raise their own score and lower the other team's score. Also, this leads itself to ball pickers that clean a goal of its negative balls. Overall, the robot diversity would be greater and more interesting. This could be implemented with not only balls, but whatever scoring mechanism that is used for the game. It also would be very convenient to turn the tides at the end of the match by quickly hurdling some negative balls into the other goal. I believe it's a very inventive idea. The only problem being with this would be the QP factor. Implementing any negative balls would lower the Potential QPs for the match (that is, if the loser score multiplier is implemented). Matches where these negative balls are used will tend to have much lower Qps than matches where they aren't used. It all depends on the QP scoring system. Nonetheless, a very cool idea.
~Hubicki~

PUSH n STACK
 

Check out the diagram BELOW, as you can see each 2 pairs of robots starts on their team side. Each team side as a area marked on the floor with their team color.

The objective is to push, pull, lift... whatever get those blocks somehow in your marked-off area. I threw in some ideas to have fun with such as a -5 point block ( UH OH ) and some +4 larger blocks. The -5 blocks would start out in your area so get it out and put it in THEIR zone! Get those point cubes and push or stack them in your ZONE!

I dont think this competition would rely on brute force as much as it would skill and strategy! Im still deciding on whether the blocks should count as points only if they are ALL THE WAY in the marked area or atleast SEMI part it. Maybe a mix between what kind of block it is.

Also any ideas on what the block could be made out of? I was thinking just plasitc cubes, it would be cheap to make and very easy to color. Perhaps even make them sponge cubes :)

* Got another idea, if you cant get cubes you could replace them with balls, same color and sizes as the cubes were but now the area that you need to get the balls into would be marked out by Half Inch PVC pipe around the border?! That way you could roll the balls in and they would stay there until someone came and knocked them out with some force.

Scoring Ideas
 

I. Why do we need complicated tie breakers (in Qualifying matches) to insure a win/loss? I recommend that ties be allowed, where in the event of a tie, both teams score QPs according to either:
1. 1.0*score (same as a loss for both teams)
2. 2.0*score (compromise)
3. 3.0*score (same as win for both teams)

In determining record you would have W-L-T.

You would need tie-breakers for elimination rounds.

II. Idea for autonomy...If different colored "balls" are going to count for different points, and some "balls" may deduct score, then, if we had a sensor which could give a signal when presented with this "negative color" we could have our robot make decisions and select which balls it chooses to pick up (for instance, a sensor which "sees red").

Another idea for autonomy is to put the "balls" in a box or bag that the robot would have to reach into (the driver couldn't see what he was getting). An autonomous gripper, with appropriate sensors, would only require the driver to get the appendage into the box. The gripper would sort through the balls.

Or, an enclosure with a 1'-2' high vision-blocking wall. You could still see enough to drive the robot in and out of the enclosure, but you could not clearly see balls on the playing field with enough certainty to reliably distinguish between red and blue balls.

If the game requires red alliance scores red balls and blue alliance scores blue balls, then interleaving balls on the playing field would encourage a device which can "sort by color." In other words, you would not need "deductive balls." If you just picked up a bunch of balls and scored them, you would score an equal number for both you and your opponent.

III. On using footballs with a human player. It is much easier to throw a football 40' and hit a small target than a soccer ball, beach ball, or basketball. If the game involves putting balls in goals and the balls are footballs, the human player would become too important.

IV. In defence of soccer balls, now that teams can reliably manipulate them with robots, you can have some pretty cool things going on in the game. If the game were to involve new, non-round "balls," you will probably only have a few teams effectively manipulate them.

Although the temptation to design a fribee hurler or a football place-kicker is nearly over-powering, I would rather design "Ball shooter, mark II" and get it tweaked out this time.

Andrew
Team 356

what about outlawing wheels?

idea: rather than a level XY plane as a playing field, what about having the field (outfitted w/ carpet) at an angle, say 45-60 degrees? This way robots need to move up and down as well as across the angled surface--more automation. Balls have been overused. Try equiangular trigonal pyramids as movable objects (they sit on angled surfaces nicely).

It seems to me that any game that includes battling over grounded objects is going to make the game very, very torque and traction oriented. With a game where big geometric shapes, goals or whatnot are the primary method of scoring, it will become like this year's eliminations where whoever can dominate with torque will be the victor. In some of these suggested games, the end all be all of robots would be one that is one huge bulldozer that has the torque of God. There needs to be a considerable speed/maneuverabillity factor that will prevent a no-brainer answer to the speed/torque dillema, or else robot diversity will be minimal. In next year's game, there needs to be a stronger incentive to make a fast and maneuverable robot as opposed to a torque-only bot. That will make the competition very interesting.
~Hubicki~

Anyone remember the old gameshow "American Gladiators" on USA a few (well, many) years back? Having a few fields like they had back then would be pretty cool. More like obstacle courses than a torque-fight.

BUMP?
 

Hows this for a change in layout.... have these 4 Humps, to get points you need to see how many boxes you can put on your humps. There is also a sort of poll/tower thats very skinny but stacking your boxes on this would give you a multiplier! if you team had 1 box on the poll you would get a 2x muliplier, but the other team could have 2 more boxes on top of that giving them a 3x multiplier! I thought it would sound like fun, espcially the hump part because robots these days are so low to the ground.... get those bots up and doing stuff!

I don't have anything in terms of a game, but I thought of a nifty little concept.
Everyone is always talking about these magic game pieces that are worth more than the rest (kind of like the black ball of 2000). What if we used this for Dean's little coopertition idea. What if this "ball" is worth 10 points in your "basket" but then it turns into a multiplier for the other team. Then you would have teams putting the little points for yourself and big points for the other team, but everyone gets higher scores b/c of all these multipliers.

Perhaps to get rid of the 'who has the strongest robot' idea, they should go back to having everyone on the same team? Everyone cooperates to achive some large objective...

Team Stack
 

Instead of having teams go up against eachother, lets make them work together eh? Simple idea, you have a large ramped platform but the flat area is only half the size of the large box. The idea is to stack as many boxes as you can, but you cant stack 2 boxes of the same color on top of each other. Other rules such as get back to your endzone may apply as well.

TOP VIEW


SIDE VIEW


EXAMPLE OF SCORING

I would steer away from the whole 1 alliance idea. Watching 2001 matches vs. 2002 matches, 2002 was a whole lot more exciting. And the key factor with 2 v 2 was audience participation and attitude. In 2001, yes you were rooting for the teams, but in the back of your mind, you were hoping that they'd mess up so you could take the lead. And I heard complaints that a game without an opponent was boring. This year, you were rooting for an alliance (most likely the underdog) to do well and beat the big, bad, dominant alliance. The 2 v 2 setup is much too invigorating and just plain cool to pass up. There are other ways to de-emphasize torque that are just as effective. In fact, I think a cooperative match may even de-emphasize torque TOO much, to the point that speedy, maneuverable robots will be the only robots on the field.
~hubicki~

First, the 2001 games where a lot more exciting than 2002.

Then my idea.

Robots powered by hamsters drinking Mountain Dew. Nuff said.

Yeah, I agree. I wasn't around in 2001, but personally, I'd think the idea of a 4-bot alliance is kinda dull. To add some excitement, stay with the 2 v 2 setup. Adds a great element of excitement to the game.

Another thing to add,
In a 4 v 0 competition, the challenge has to be unbelievably difficult to make it challenging for 4 robots to accomplish it (i.e. balancing two goals on a bridge). As the difficulty of a challenge goes up, the harder it is to keep it simple enough for an audience to understand. This was the main issue with 2001. In order to keep all of the robots busy, FIRST made 5 different ways to score. This confused the heck out of my friends when they watched it. If FIRST were to compromise and make 1 or 2 super-hard aspecta for the robots to do, I think robot diversity would decline. And I'm pretty sure Dean implied at kickoff this year that 4 v 0 won't be happening for a while.
~Hubicki~

Another thought on competition structure.

It might be interesting if Day One of competition were the Qualifying (or Seeding) rounds.

Make Day Two of competition a double elimination tournament, but with more seeds than are currently used.

Instead of eight alliances, expand to sixteen alliances. (If you had 48 teams.)

You could actually have twelve alliances, with the bottom four starting out in the "loser's bracket" (with an implicit one loss) and even out the loser's bracket so that it is in step with the "winner's bracket."

Andrew

Robsoccer
 

How about this for next year's game:

The object of the game is to have the robots play a friendly game of soccer. The field will be setup like a soccer field except the goal can be the old ball chutes on the bottom of the alliance stations that were used in former years. There is a zone around them that the robots can not drive in, perhaps closed off by 2x4 pieces of wood. The soccer balls are lined up in the middle. The robots start on opposite sides like this year, and it is still 2 v 2 . When the game is started, the object is to get balls into the ball chute. That is pretty much it.

Despite it's simplicity, this game has a lot of benefits. You can have teams that try to play offense or defense. Since most people have seen soccer, it would be very easy to understand from a spectator viewpoint. You could even have a realtime scoring system which counts the balls as they go into the ball chute to the goal.So-- what do you think?

Hi I haven't posted hear in a while. As long as next years game doesn't have any more balls/goals Im happy. Hear are some of my ideas for differnt games:
Just a little sidenote a few people have been posting about using tracks for robots to ride on well hears a competition that uses that idea.
just read the link
http://www.bestinc.org/2002/games.pl

Hear are my ideas
Minesweeper-mines are in the sand and your job is to build a robot tough enough to destroy(read set the mines off) them. The arena would be nothing but sand and plastic mines in the ground. The robot which sets off the most mines wins. Of course this would require a big amount of sand.
Streetsweeper-build a robot that can sweep the ground up of garbage. Robots have to be able to pick up garbage and deposit them into a bin. The robot that collects the most garbage wins. This would be easy just build a plywood floor and collect as much trash as you can and throw it on the floor. Buy two big bins and place them on both sides of the arena. The arena can be the same size as last time.
Robot soccer-Two robots on each side compete with goals on eacg side of the arena. The object is to get the balls into the goals. One robot on each side plays defense and one robot on each side plays offense.
:edit:
lol someone beat me to this idea hehe its a really cool idea i like it but it should be challenging read below and combine both ideas:p
Wheel-less wonders-Builder a machine that doesn't use wheels but actually walks. You probably could combine this idea with robot soccer. It would be cool except you'd probably need to chage the minimum deminsions for the robot.
:editing again:
ooo I have another good idea that you should think about. You should tape all the reginals and each team gets a copy of the reginals tape that each team went to
:edit yet another idea:
bridging machines-the object is to build a machine that can cross a large ravine buy deploying a bridge to cross. The machine must be able to redeploy the bridge once it crosses the ravine. The arena probably will be raised a little bit and will be made out of wood. The hole should be only as high as the teeter toters from two years ago if i remeber corretly to prevent major damage being done to a robot.
Ill give anyone a cookie if they guess which show I got most of these ideas from.:cool:

I think a multilevel field with stairs, something to pull yourself up on and/or some other technical challenge to get to the upper level would be fun and challenging. I also agree that 2000 was a great game simple objective, fun and unpredictable.