Re: [Official 2007 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2007 game...
 

Well, you're right, but it would make it more reliable. Additionally, you could climb the poles at the end for extra points

Re: [Official 2007 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2007 game...
 

The name of the game is:



Bumble Rumble is played with 24 of these activated and randomly dropped on the playing field.

There are two three team allainces. One blue. One red. Also there are six automated goals. Three for the blue allaince and three for the blue.


Autonomous mode
The game begins with a 15 second autonomous period. The robots must tag the disabled autonomous goal. If they do then the scoring potential for each tagged goal is doubled. If one of the allaince's oen goals are tagged then the potential is tripled for the other allaince. The alliance that tags the most goals gets a 5 point bonus.

Game Play
Match play is 2 minites long. Robots must gather and dump bumble balls into the opposing goals. Each ball is worth 1 point (thus 2 for a tagged goal and 3 for an erronously tagged goal). At the end of the match the allainces can capture and drag the opposing autonomous goals back totheir zone for a 5 point bonus for 1. 10 point bonus for 2 and 25 point bonus for three.

Re: [Official 2007 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2007 game...
 

Ed,

What is the cost of a Bumble Ball? It could be an interesting gamepiece, but is its' plastic skin too fragile for 120 lb robots? It might be better suited as a gamepiece for Vex robots, which could be affected by the vibrations of the ball.

Re: [Official 2007 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2007 game...
 

I liked the old competitions with heavy objects and brute force robots (2001 and 2002). How about gathering 16 pound bowling balls and placing them in a goal. The human player could "launch" bowling balls into play through a shoot that could be directed anywhere on the field. Robots would have to be robust enough to withstand a "hit" by a bowling ball and able to pick one up from the floor and into a goal. For the "weaker" bots, volleyballs could be used as well with a huge point difference for the 16 pounders, say 1 point vs 16 pts.

Re: [Official 2007 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2007 game...
 

This would simplify scouting. After 8 to 10 rounds of hard-knock qualifying, teams that still had a functioning 'bot might be picking from a small pool of potentially helpful alliance partners!

Re: [Official 2007 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2007 game...
 

AIM HIGH .. thats gonna be hard to beat.. id like to see something with the shooting again , the crowd seemed to like that and another bonus thing like the ramp..not the bar from 2004. Also another way for human player to score like the low goals in aim high .. that be cool to see again

Re: [Official 2007 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2007 game...
 

well, i'm not sure if anyone else saw this pattern, but for the announcement of the 2005 game, they said they wanted to use FIRST shapes.

so, we had triangle that year, circle last year, and square? next year?
oh, and they'll most definitely make the cameras a bigger part, along with a longer 15 second auton mode. I would like to see another stack-attack like game.

Re: [Official 2007 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2007 game...
 

I'd like to see the 2007 game rules place limits on the amount of energy available for the robot. Basically I'd like to see teams limited to only 2 batteries for the competition no exceptions. I'm a HVAC contractor and have been going crazy upgrading my customers systems to improve efficiency and cut their operating costs. I always liked their way First competition mirrored the business world. Energy use and costs have become a larger factor in the business world and First should follow and put some focus on it. Last year in the finals we were up against a team with a energy sucking power defensive bot that needed a fresh battery for every match. They were only able to compete because other teams loaned them a full charged battery after every round. For years there has been a Tim Allen attitude pervading First of "More Power". This mind set is out of tune with what is occurring in the real world. For example look at what has happened to Intel's focus as far as energy consumption vs. chip performance. Let's make energy management part of the robot design process. Any comments?

Re: [Official 2007 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2007 game...
 

I definently agree that energy conservation and efficiency are always important in the real world, but Intel and other industry's have a bit of an advantage when it comes to designing efficient devices. The computer chip, automobile, microwave, etc. had been along for a long time, with companies shooting for performance, before efficiency came into play. FIRST introduces a new game every year, with new dynamics and correspondingly, devices to deal with them. We really don't have much time to work out 10% greater efficiency on a manipulator or shooter wheel, so that loss is simply countered by being able to change batteries more often in competition.

Teams can push the envelope with ability, weight, speed, etc., and therefore create faster, more exciting and capable machines, if they don't have an overbearing power restriction. When efficiency comes into play, too often teams would have to completely cut devices to save juice. It's kind of like racing efficiencies versus Formula 1 cars. The smaller cars may be more efficient and practical, but nine times out of ten, faster is more exciting.

I do agree that power restrictions would create a new, completely valid and challenging parameter of the competition, and would push teams as much as any other game problem, but I feel that, especially for spectators, the overall level of game interaction and excitement would decrease.

Re: [Official 2007 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2007 game...
 

An energy budget and allocation is something that everyone has been forced to deal with in the past year. Both businesses and individuals. It's not going to get better in the future. I just think it would be good for First to start to incorporate it in to the game to mimic the real world. I find a certain elegance in simplicity and efficiency

Re: [Official 2007 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2007 game...
 

Stacking boxes would be a cool game to have. The thing is that they've used up all of the shapes (tetra's, boxes, and balls). What I would like to see is a game with multiple game pieces which are all worth the same amount of points (maybe all three FIRST shapes). This would make the game a lot more challenging. This would also grant a choice for teams to make. Teams would have to choose which game piece(s) they would like to work withe. This game would be a really high energy game and would have very unique robot designs.

Re: [Official 2007 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2007 game...
 

See "Stack Attack" in 2003

Re: [Official 2007 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2007 game...
 

Some things I would like to see in the rule book that I think would pose a good challenge.

Lower the weight limit to 105LBS not including the battery.

Use more than one kind of surface (like carpet, tile, Vinyl, and Smooth metal)

The game should stay 3 on 3, so the regionals will go faster and negate the advantage of stronger teams.

Require bumpers for all robots to prevent damage, and allow more of a defensive strategy.

Re: [Official 2007 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2007 game...
 

Yea... and it takes $300 Million to have a winning Formula 1 team, I think making teams more resourceful and having to do more with less will make the competition more exciting with a more level playing field.

Re: [Official 2007 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2007 game...
 

I've updated the Baton Blitz game. Too late for the game this year, but still fun to talk about. Be sure to let me know what you think of the new version.

-Chris