Re: [Official 2007 Game Design] Game Elements and Subtasks
 

Seconded.

Re: [Official 2007 Game Design] Game Elements and Subtasks
 

I agree with Billfred, 2006 wasn't very bad. The muzzle velocity and incursion seemed to have more to do with the scoring system and field set up than actual safety.
But I do see where you're coming from, especially with the 2005 game (and a little with the incursion in 2004). 2003 was also pretty safe, as the human players only functioned before the bots moved at all.

Re: [Official 2007 Game Design] Game Elements and Subtasks
 

An idea on penalties:
Team sports do not actually subtract points (or add points to the opponent) for penalties, but rather just make the it easier for one team to acquire points. That idea could be interesting in an FRC game.
Instead of penalizing 5 points to the alliance at the end of the match, the offending robot(s) could be disabled for various lengths of time. A small penalty, 5 seconds, a longer one could be a disabling for the rest of the match (which already exists).

Re: [Official 2007 Game Design] Game Elements and Subtasks
 

Would penalty time be enforced electronically by the field controller? Or maybe just having the offending drive team step away from their controls for the duration of the penalty?

Re: [Official 2007 Game Design] Game Elements and Subtasks
 

Good theory, probably poor execution. Someone would need a box with 6 cut-out switches. Then a flag is thrown by the ref, he's got to tell the box holder which robot is disabled and for how long, the box operator has to find the right button to push. In the mean time, the diabolical robot has totally trashed the opponent - or done something else nasty - or may have used it's unfair advantage to score points for its alliance, or prevent the opponents from scoring.

Sports penalties are incurred either by stopping the game and giving the offended a scoring opportunity (basketball, soccer, hockey) or by changing the status of the game once a play stops (football). You're right that they don't add or subtract points for penalties. However some timed sports add time for infractions.

In some leagues, standings can be altered after the fact for shenanigans that went on either in a game or outside it. If anyone is familiar with the Italian soccer scandal, that is just what has happened. Teams have been sent to lower divisions, and/or will start the season with negative points in the standings.

Unless we want to make the game into stop/start type of play (either by ref whistle for penalties or by an end of play as in football) we will have to be satisfied with post-match penalties. The key is to making the penalty commensurate with the infraction. IMO the loading zone penalties in Triple Play were too extreme - too many points for sometimes trivial infractions. The problem the GDC has is that until games are run, they don't know just how many points will be scored. In Aim High we had lots of predictions about robots that would score 30 points in a couple seconds of autonomous - but how often did that happen?

Re: [Official 2007 Game Design] Game Elements and Subtasks
 

That's why you cut out that middle man. Give the head ref(s) the disable button. It has a button for each of the 6 starting locations on the field, and when hit it disables for the minimum penalty (for example, 10 seconds). During those 10 seconds, (s)he then adjusts it to a greater length penalty if the infraction was longer.

Re: [Official 2007 Game Design] Game Elements and Subtasks
 

You still have a problem. Either that means the head ref is the only one that can call penalties, or he will have to get information from the others.

And we'd probably get a lot of re-do's as the wrong robot unintentionally gets disabled.

I don't think the technology would be impossible. I just worry about the human interfaces.

Re: [Official 2007 Game Design] Game Elements and Subtasks
 

You know what would make every field coach need a long nap after a competition? Not knowing exactly what game you'll be playing until just after introductions.

Imagine a big wheel behind the field that is spun right before autonomous. On it are several stipulations--in the example of Aim High, things like a 20-point autonomy bonus, corner goal balls are worth three points, two-minute free-for-all, highest team numbers from each alliance sit out the match, lowest team numbers from each alliance sit out, drive the robot to your right, or the dreaded Verbrugge light. Suddenly, you can't plan for everything that could come up, and you've got exactly ten seconds to create your strategy.

You know, shake things up a bit. ;)

Re: [Official 2007 Game Design] Game Elements and Subtasks
 

I once heard about an Intro to Physics instructor who took a similar approach to writing tests. Tests were given during the last ten minutes of scheduled lecture periods. Students had to study and practice for maybe a half-dozen different types of problems, but only one of them would be on the test. So if you understood and were prepared for five of the possible six types of problems, but the one you didn't get was the one that the instructor chose -- then you'd get a zero on that test. Of course luck of the draw might also work in your favor.

Averaged over a large sample of students and a long period of time, this instructor's system was 'fair' and it certainly saved him quite a bit of time making up test problems. But it seemed unfair to the students who got zero.

Re: [Official 2007 Game Design] Game Elements and Subtasks
 

I have always loved the idea of an evolving field. After a certain time in the regionals, the field is added to. Than it happens again. Than again. And again during the quarterfinals to finals.

Re: [Official 2007 Game Design] Game Elements and Subtasks
 

This one came to me the other night, and I think it could work well.

Imagine a series of auto-loaders for the game object like in 2005, but with a bit of a dump action like in 2004, and a 2006-esque vision target incorporated somehow. Human players have a supply of the game piece, which they can place on any of the loading platforms. When loaded, the vision target turns on. Five (or three, or what have you) seconds later, the platform dumps out the object into play and the light goes out. There would be no distinction between red-loaded and blue-loaded platforms.

I'm picturing several of these on the back border of the field, all identical in nature. Teams wouldn't need the whole dumping mechanism, just the chute or route the object will take out of the dumper. And, if Dave Verbrugge comes a-knocking, you could always have the green light turn on first, then go to yellow, then to red right before the dump.

Re: [Official 2007 Game Design] Game Elements and Subtasks
 

I want something big in autonomous that only one side can get, almost like the center peice in Lego League compititions, however autonomous time is extended, say to 30-45 seconds, apon achieving this goal you recieve a large number of points 50-75 or maybe instead of points a multiplier thats applied to your points at the end 1.5-2x, and the very second you achieve this your opposing team can be human controlled, and you must stay in autonomous until the time is up, there would still be the main part of your game you could work on so one would likely see amazing autonomous codes, although with the fact that the other team gets to go human controled it allows them to either stop you from getting more points, or work on getting as many points as possible as the autonomous would make the other team in a disadvantage... and then I think the end would need to have the same impact and excitment added, can't think of anything unique

Re: [Official 2007 Game Design] Game Elements and Subtasks
 

That would be cool if one RED alliance robot and one BLUE alliance robot could go to the center of the field and do a task together and receive like 25 bonus points for each alliance. That would show the spirit of Gracious Professionalism.

Re: [Official 2007 Game Design] Game Elements and Subtasks
 

Interesting idea, but I don't think it would work in a game like Aim High, because each side would be receiving the same amount of points, and it wouldn't affect the outcome. It would be a good idea for a game that involved a ranking system based on total points scored over the course of a regional. That is something I would like to see. A game that has a different kind of ranking system, maybe like soccer (3 points for a win, 1 for a draw 0 for a loss). I think a game with a baseball or soccer-like score would be intriguing, and maybe a little easier for a spectator to wrap their mind around.

Re: [Official 2007 Game Design] Game Elements and Subtasks
 

From 2004-2006 we had a semi-NHL style system. 2 points for a win, 1 for a tie, and 0 for a loss. (In 2006, the NHL eliminated ties, and before that they also awarded points for OT losses. FIRST allows ties, but has no OT). I think this will most likely be back this year.
The "Rating Points" (RP) served only as a tie-breaker if two teams had the same QPs (W/L/T points). Rating Points were the adverage score of the LOSER of each of the matches you participated in.