Re: A Trend in the FRC Games?
 

The only problem is they are really big (like 11 feet tall) and if they put six on the field they'd have to make a bigger field.
When Dave asks for his new game design I'm going to design a game around these balls.

Re: A Trend in the FRC Games?
 

I always think about what the real life challenges and constraint possibilities are. Hands-on applications in the robotics lab, in working with the challenges of the space station, in the automated industry. We're playing a game that the GDC designs, yes - but the teams develop awesome manipulators year after year. Drive systems. Robotic autonomy. I always think about that. When the discussion focused on the G22 rule, I thought about that in those terms. An inch is an inch, a 1/2 inch is a 1/2 inch type of thinking - when applying the constraint to a real life problem, seeking a solution. Granted, I don't have any examples other than when I'm trying to back up the team trailer, but it is what I thought about. There are times when there isn't the ease of movement that we would like to have in the game. It's good for us to have to deal with that and come up face to face with it, seeing what evolves and how the teams meet the challenge. This is the type of thing I like to think about when musing about the next season's game. :)

Re: A Trend in the FRC Games?
 

Hmmm. FIRST is always in search of new and interesting game pieces for future FRC games. FIRST has just announced their new international regional event in New Zealand. Zorbs are made in New Zealand. Sheep love Zorbs. Sheep love FIRST. There are lots of sheep in New Zealand. Can it all just be a coincidence?

-dave


.

Re: A Trend in the FRC Games?
 

Well at least we know sheep can be launched.
Might need bigger, tougher fences though.

Re: A Trend in the FRC Games?
 

Or what if you put the MC or Game Announcer in the Zorb ball?

-Oris-

Re: A Trend in the FRC Games?
 

I still put my money on boxes for next years game ;)

You needn't look at history from 10 years ago since the organization has changed so much. I think that once they introduced new game pieces to the mix, they realized how boring it was to keep the same piece for 4 years. Now theres 2 "odd" shapes, and 2 different sizes of balls for any given 4 year period in FIRST. I think they are trying to get students to think of new ideas every year, and changing the game piece is the easiest way of doing that.

I am personally hoping for a more dynamic game like back in 2004. The human players actually scored points in that year, which added versatility to a team. Hanging on the bar was a strategy in itself. I remember 237 that year had a bot that moved across the bar so that nobody else could get on. The robots could horde balls, pick up big ones, drag goals, climb stairs, hang from a bar.

I liked it a lot :)

Re: A Trend in the FRC Games?
 

As I said, ball, odd shape, ball, odd shape. Boxes, maybe. Donuts are pretty recent (3 games, with one being in 2007, one in 1997, and one in 1999), leaving boxes, tetras, or something all out of whack. I'm trying to design a game (for the design thread) that will fall into the last category... Bwahahahahaha. Oh and if you want a dynamic game... Double evil laugh.

Re: A Trend in the FRC Games?
 

I want to see a game go back to when you could actually play some defense. This year's game was great but, it got kinda tiring without the ability to play straight forward defense. We were always glancing at the refs to ensure that the slightest nudge was legal.

I'd love to see some kind of strange object next year. Boxes would be cool, as long as the game was actually designed so that the boxes could be manipulated effectively and not descored in .2 sec (we've all seen the videos of the teams who would stack 3-4 boxes and then go to get another and then have their stack knocked over in '03).

Also I hope the GDC continues to make it easy for teams to field a competitive robot like this years game and also in 06. Just about any team this year with even a basic drive train could score points and make a positive contribution to their alliance. I know of at lease two time this year where one of our matches was decided by a mere 2 points.

Re: A Trend in the FRC Games?
 

To those who doubt, have you ever heard any sheep state the contrary?

ahem.


The trend in FIRST games has been towards..

Automated or easy scoring
Quick and easy field reset
Easy concept for spectators to grasp
(cost*quantity) for game pieces is reasonably small.

Traditionally, and speculatively for the future, we can expect...

26 x 54 playing field (or whatever the dimensions are...)
3-team alliances
Autonomous mode of 15-20 seconds
Match time of 2 minutes-ish
An end-of-game bonus for doing something
Some kind of object that needs to be manipulated to score
120 lb robots
17 Ah batteries

And, you'll generally do well in competition if your robot...

Captures the scoring object quickly and positively
Can score well in all or most of the possible ways
Is robust/durable and consistent.

But I think almost anyone could spot these trends...

Don

Re: A Trend in the FRC Games?
 

My personal view on this is that they move away from balls, in fact they should think of something totally unique. What I had in mind was that the game could be the around the same dimensions as always, first you have no barriers what so ever just a flat ground with the glass surrounding the playing field, the game would be just who could pick up an object, whatever it may be, and go across to the opponents side to a set out area, drawn out with masking tape where the objects would be put, the catch is, that the game would be like tag in a way where it would be mandatory to have switches in certain places on your robot, and if the switch is hit then the robot stops until one of it's switches is pushed again, yes this very complicates and all, but it's unique!

Re: A Trend in the FRC Games?
 

Sometimes we can't see the forest for the trees. The significance of these trends is much greater than simple ball/not ball patterns, because it does tell you something about what to expect. Certainly some of the trends have reasons... for instance if we were allowed to build 38"x40" robots, I will bet at least a few teams would have to disassmble their shop to get the robot out.

Another trend, two drivers, a coach and a human player of some description is also present. Perhaps because it seems to work pretty well.

The field size also seems fairly fixed. There may also be constraints on the size of the playing field at some venues that I haven't visited... but I would certainly love to see it made larger. That, alone, would eliminate a lot of "defense" without needing rules to specifically take care of it. Kind of like Olympic vs. NHL sized ice rinks... the big playing surfaces benefit speedy, skilled players.

I would expect a few changes for next year as a result of the control system, however... I get the impression it weighs a bit more than the IFI system, so I wouldn't be surprised to see a slight increase in the weight limit... and with the possibility of video feedback, part of the match could be played with a curtain obscuring the driver's view of the field running on video feedback only.

As much as hybrid mode might have fit in well, I do miss having human players do something physical/athletic. The 2004 game where the human players shot the balls to score points was definitely the high point for human players since I have been going to regionals.

But as for trends, keep in mind what the mutal funds say, "Past performance does not indicate future results."

Jason

Re: A Trend in the FRC Games?
 

I predict an intelligent game piece. Small autonomous robots, randomly scooting about the field.....

Re: A Trend in the FRC Games?
 

You mean like my Chicken Goals from Bumble Rumble.

Re: A Trend in the FRC Games?
 

Placebo!

(For those that don't get it, some of the games pre-1997 (AKA before my first year as a spectator) had placebo robots to maintain a 1v1v1. They didn't do a whole lot other than move around.)

Re: A Trend in the FRC Games?
 

Actually, the point I am trying to make is that it could very well be as simple as ball/not ball. I agree there are many more parameters that are usually similar year to year which we take for granted.

However, FIRST isn't going to go crazy on one game, with incredibly complicated rules and expensive game pieces. By simply alternating ball/not ball, they encourage an innovative thought process. I don't expect to see large blow up balls again any time soon, cause in the next couple years the same kids may still be on the team, and whats the challenge in doing something thats been solved already.

I am very very interested by this discussion because looking back, the majority of posts are mentors. I find it interesting because we have all likely been around for 4+ years...

If only we had someone from first posting here.