Re: [Official 2008 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2009 game...
 

Okay I have some ideas, however, they aren't for the 2009 year (obviously). Anyway:

There will be three poles. The poles are about the height of volleyball poles. At the start of the game, 2 poles (one per alliance) will be knocked down, at random angles at positions as long as it faces correspnding alliances robots. There will be a sensor strrip along the pole. During autonomous the robots get points for setting the pole straight. When straight it will lock into place. If this is done during teleoperated there is no point bonus. The center (third) pole will have a ball on it like a tether ball.

The game peices will be some sort of disk that can be placed around the poles, preferably small. There would be some disks that would be like frisbees. These would start with the human player and they (or a robot) could attempt too shoot these at a goal (like 2006). These goals would be across the wide side of the field, however, I think the wide side should be slightly wider. However, the 2 alliance poles, during teleoperated would be used to activate the ball on the middle pole. Whichever alliance has more disks on their pole is able to use the ball to hit the other robots. When a robot, that does not have possesion of the ball, is hit the human players fall through a trapdoor into a padded pit. (Not very big, unless FIRST would allow that). This would give the most points. There should be some sort of procedure to re-activate a human player. Similarly if a robot hits the ball when they are not in control they activate the trapdoor and points are awarded to the other team. The frisbees would be able to be herded/passed back to the human player, if they are still active. Bonus points at the end would be awarded to a team that could place the ball on top of the middle pole (it would have a small area to hold). This would be difficult strategy wise, because only the alliance in control of the ball can touch it. And if while they are placing the other alliance gained possesion that alliance would receive the points. Maybe new game peices could be introduced by a robot going to to a elevated area with a strange feild surface and activating a sensor. (A little irony because the robot would activate the sensor, instead of the sensor being activated by a feild element.

I think the matches should be extended to a 25 second autonomous and a 2 minute 20 second teleoperated. I beleive this would open up autonomous options. Maybe some robots could fix the pole. Other could start placing game peices (if given the oppurtunity to start with them. Some could herd frisbees, some could do many of these. Maybe really good alliance could plan on moving the ball a lot if they have robots which can score game peices. There are a world of oppurtunities.

Just my $0.02 :D

Re: [Official 2008 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2009 game...
 

Folks, if you have a game design idea, you may wish to wait until May or so, when the 2010 threads open up. Refine the ideas in the meantime.

Re: [Official 2008 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2009 game...
 

Or if you have a good idea and just can't wait, just go ahead and post them in here. They will get read, one way or the other.



.

Re: [Official 2008 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2009 game...
 

More water next year!!! :D
(And no, not just spray bottles!!!) ;)

Re: [Official 2008 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2009 game...
 

i think an interesting game would be like dodgeball..use poofballs as game pieces,
shooters to hit other robots or a target on the robot, or you can make a manipulator to catch the ball when its thrown..
and for the game to be more exciting, add 2 more teams to each alliance.. a game of 5v5
so
i think crab drives would be the essential drivetrain to succeed..
and you can use a targeting system to track and shoot other robots..\

idk.. it would be like a game of tanks!


but besides this fact.
has anyone noticed the pattern to the games..
like one year you need an arm mechanism, the next is a shooter, the next is sort of like an arm but you can make any type of manipulator.. and so on.

Re: [Official 2008 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2009 game...
 

Well, we did play a lot of dodgeball in 2006...with poofballs...just that the robots didn't play.

5v5? Ouch. The field can't get much bigger, but it would almost have to to add 2 robots per side.

As for pattern, there's not a pattern...
1998, arm/lift
1999, lift
2000, lift and/or shooter (mainly lifts)
2001, arm/lift, drivebase, goal latches
2002, planting device, ball channel
2003, who cares? The stacks fall anyway due to a B.O.W.
2004, lift/arm, depending on objective.
2005, arm/lift
2006, shooter/dumper
2007, arm/lift or ramps
2008, arm/lift or forget about the game object
2009, shooter/dumper

Re: [Official 2008 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2009 game...
 

You are making a basic assumption (not unreasonable, but not necessarily true, either) that the robots are going to be the same size as before. There is nothing that says the bots can't be smaller, or at least have a smaller foot print. That would just be another design challenge. The issue would be the size of the control boards in that the drivers would have less room on the end. (Unless, of course, there were two levels of drivers, the ones behind higher so they could look over the ones in front.) :)

Re: [Official 2008 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2009 game...
 

No firm ideas, but totally against complicated fields (too expensive to build) and against more reliance on "autonomous" modes. To make this a more popular competition with the general public, the robots need to be driven by people, not black boxes.

For scoring objects, use standard 1L soda bottles, filled with small styrofoam balls and with top cap sealed. Cheap, sturdy, not too heavy, interesting shape to handle, everyone can get them. Use different colored styrofoam for each alliance, say blue and red. Both bottles are in the same fueling location so the robot has to differentiate between them when fueling or hope to get lucky.

Keep a short autonomous period at the beginning of the match. Like 2008, some bottles can be preloaded, others must be captured. Same scoring rules as the human controlled period in every way - why add more rules?

There is only one scoring location in the field center, possibly an octagonal column (thick plexi, so it's clear) with larger holes near the bottom, smaller holes nearer the top. All teams score to the same location. Defense (blocking) is allowed. Robots have bumpers and must remain in their vertical column dimension.

Bottles scored are easy to count, immediately. Penalties on robots, if there are any in the rules, are assessed and scored immediately. Games where the final score is not the final score are unacceptable.

End of game bonus - allow scoring in the most difficult and highest point scoring hole, and maybe there are only 1 or 2 holes of that type. Earlier scores there do not count, but no penalty either. Excessive penalties complicate the rules and add nothing to the game.

Bottles can be loaded similar to how the 2008 game robots got their payloads, but don't allow direct human loading. So get them at the fueling station or scoop missed shots off the floor. Robots can load 1 or more bottles, as many as they can fit in their dimension.

Simple game, fast paced. Easy to score immediately. The score when the horn sounds is the final score. Possible to play offense or defense strategy, or combination. Penalties should be rare and for exceptional circumstances, not assessed many times per match.

Keep it simple. Easy to score. Fast pace.

Re: [Official 2008 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2009 game...
 

I like this game... although it might be better with 2 liter bottles... which are more the standard around here...
We might find these bottles not as robust as you might want. I had sketched out a game in which we used tubes of 4" diameter PVC pipe as game pieces.... more robust... cheap... a number of different ways to handle them...

Or even capped 4" PVC ....

I think autonomous scoring can be very simple....

Whatever you score in autonomous you get to count.... and then at the end of the game those scores are still there (assuming no ability to descore..) they count again... if you have de-scoring then you have to protect them somehow...

So in effect you get a double score for those items scored in autonomous.

Simple, easy to see ....

I like the use of a standard item...and carpet...
I am not sure whether I like the idea of the robot having to stay in its vertical dimension... this would really limit the height of the goals and make it harder to see the scoring... I think building mechanisms that lift and place (arms, lifts, etc) can be fun to build and give a number of interesting problems mechanically...

Contact should remain at the bumper level... as you mentioned.

You might also adapt this to be more scoring opportunities in the corners also.. and perhaps add a way for robots to be loaded manually (similar to the slot in rack and roll..)
Otherwise this resembles Rack and Roll too much...

I also like having some sort of end game... either a place for robots to end up.. or a special last 20-30 second task that only scores then...

interesting ideas!!

Re: [Official 2008 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2009 game...
 

Just don't fill the bottles with styrofoam balls. Use water instead, in varying amounts.

:D:ahh::yikes::p

Re: [Official 2008 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2009 game...
 

Something cool: multi field interactions. Two hexagonal fields in which there is a mountain in the center of the two connecting them. The center holds two bots who must wrestle down to their alliances field. On the top they "wrestle" for some type of puck or game piece. Said game pieces are used to score in some type of stacking goal on the opponent's side of the field.

I'm picturing 03+05

Re: [Official 2008 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2009 game...
 

PVC pipe works too.

As soon as you allow robots outside their vertical dimension, then you are going to be adding penalty rules for harsh contact, deliberately toppling over, etc.. I'd like to have a simple set of rules where there are no penalty rules except for exceptional actions, and no penalties for things that are likely to happen in every game - that's a sign of poor game design and confuses the spectators.

Scoring from inside the vertical dimension makes it quite challenging and the robot will have to launch the pipe or get real close and drop it through the lower holes. There's plenty of opportunity there for teams to be creative in pipe capture, handling, aiming and shooting.

Re: [Official 2008 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2009 game...
 

FIRST has had a tendency lately to use scoring objects that are NOT easy to get, so that FIRST can sell them to you at very high markup. I don't think FIRST would go for something like this (imho of course)


EDIT: It appears that I was pretty uninformed about pricing of the orbit balls. I guess my point was more to the availablility of items, which this year was quite a problem, as well as in 06 it posed somewhat of a problem, and in 08, while, they were pretty expensive per item, I guess you only really needed one or two of them.

Re: [Official 2008 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2009 game...
 

You're $@#$@#$@#$@#ing kidding me, right?

I'm one of the first to put FIRST to task for BS they pull at times and call people out, but that's just wrong. FIRST had every intention this past year to have the game objects easy to get, not their fault Orbit Balls were discontinued a month before the game was announced (FIRST not knowing this and making changes is a different topic.)

Every year FIRST has made concessions to make playing objects, field components, etc easy and cheap to get from any hardware, toy, or super store. Do we forget the standard soccer balls from 2002? How about the bins that every Target* carried?






*Of course this doesn't help our friends across the pond any. 'ello everyone!

Re: [Official 2008 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2009 game...
 

2002 - Soccer balls (Standard soccer ball...)
2003 - Bins (As Joe said, available at any Target)
2004 - Playground Balls (Standard playground balls I think, could be wrong though)
2005 - PVC Tetras (Pretty easy to build yourself and you only needed a few)
2006 - Poof Balls (Like $4 or $5 a piece if I remember right, though a bit hard to find in some places)
2007 - Inner Tubes (Dirt Cheap, only needed the ones in the kit)
2008 - Trackballs (Only needed the one supplied assuming you didn't pop it)

I think 2009 marked the first game where aquiring the game piece was a signifigant problem. And it wasnt really FIRST's fault.

I don't know what your talking about when you say "very high markups" either. Mind elaborating? I'm pretty sure the Orbits were the same cost from FIRST as they were from Walmart... at least after shipping and handling. The cost per ball was only $3 from FIRST.