Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 

That is a bit of odd logic from what I understand how the game actually operates. The wheels are a design requirment because the combination of the wheels and the flooring is what creates the feeling of being on the moon. Using different wheels would defeat the purpose of having a game where you are driving a robot that feels like it is on the moon. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Welcome to 99.999999% of all real life engineering endaveours. I never appreciated some of the aspects of the world I lived in until I decided to become an engineer. Your average person is not going to sit there and be amazed at the electronics inside of a computer because of the lack of background in how a computer is designed and built. I had no clue that the van de graf generator was originally used as a particle acellerator until recently.
This goes back to the above comment above chess. FIRST has managed to limit all the teams in a way that they are on equal footing technology wise. The problem that everyone seems to be having is that the field is utterly boring to the average lay person. Control engineering is as close as you can get to a purely mathematical application of engineering and with the new control system you have a really nice opportunity to work in that area.
Ooo come on. Even the silly names are an accurate representation of some engineering fields. With names like Very High Speed Intergrated Circuit Hardware Description Language I really can not complain. And yes that is an actual term more commonly known as VHDL which is a nested acronymn.
Actually, most rovers keep their speed down because of the mechanical limitations. The rocker bogie (The wheel configuration seen on most robots) by its very nature can not go very fast.
I know. I think I was really agrivated when I wrote that post. Especially seeing people like Stephen Marbury receive some credit for creating a cheap clothing line and then act like a creep. I guess I was annoyed at the negative aspect of it when in reality there are people like that in all fields. Lord knows seeing the neurosurgeon football player was certainly inspring.

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 

After less than a week? With no competition matches having been played? With no teams even driving their finished robots on a competition field? With some teams yet to receive everything in the Kit of Parts?

I am laughing at your final conclusion. Not because of what it is, but because you labeled it a "final conclusion".

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 

[quote=Andrew Schreiber;796727Also, on your list, where does <G14> come in? That is the ONLY issue I still have with the game.[/QUOTE]

I see it the way I see just about everything else with these games... It's just one more parameter to take into consideration when playing.

Patrick

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 

Wow, my last post was rather scatterbrained and probably only contained complete statements in my imagination... I think it's all in there, just not well organized at all...

Lunacy is an effort to do four things at the same time.
G1. One, it is a design challenge for FRC teams.
G2. Two, it is a game with clear objectives and rules (and ideally should be fun/interesting).
G3. Three, it is an attempt to simulate a real-world application of robots.
G4. Four, it should encourage interest in technology and attract future participants.

I believe that is the order in which the objectives should be in priority. The fourth item is more of a FIRST goal rather than a game design goal, but it should be kept in mind while designing the game overall. All of the items are interrelated, but G3 is especially emphasized this year.

I just think there are problems in that item G3 overtly influenced G1 and is conflicting with items G2 and G4. The game isn't going to be as interesting as purely a game (yes, it is interesting to us as work through the design challenge), and the simulation aspect is detrimental to generating more interest in FIRST because the game itself isn't as interesting and everything about it is somewhat sillier (although the earlier esoteric titles weren't that much better, they did seem more serious). -Sidenote: I'm a chemical & biomolecular engineering major; I know esoteric naming schemes! =D

In designing the engineering challenge, three things are considered:

D1. The design of the field (including goals)
D2. The design of the game piece
D3. The design of the robot

With another consideration about how the robot interacts with other robots, and all of this being kept within the realm of safety.

Ideally, D1 and D2 should provide the majority of the challenge with minimal restrictions placed on D3 (the robot). A well designed game will allow for finite general types of robot designs simply through field design and game piece design without explicitly limiting robot design to such types. Although only a few general types of robot are feasible, many variations can be had on those generalities because of open design allowance, so it is highly unlikely to have large numbers of extremely similar robots. Also, a relatively open design is a favorite of most designers, even if the field elements or game pieces severely limit design possibilities anyways. I, at least, would prefer a field in one game to have a divider in the middle with a 40" tall slot in it rather than a forced 40" height limit on the robots. Sure, to move around the field the robot would need to be less than 40", but I like the fact that the design of the robot is influence by an objective (crossing the field) rather than a rule forced on robot design (you must keep under 40").

Anyways, G3 once again rears its ugly head and has influenced D1, D2, and D3. Normally, this wouldn't be a bad thing, but in order to make G3 work, G1 is changed to be closer to simulation. In order to do that, D1 and D3 must be altered greatly, which creates the challenge of G1, which fits in the scheme of G3. But I argue that G1 makes a relatively poor game (G2), which is bad for G4 (encouraging participation), and frustrates designers for being limiting on the robot.

A teflon coated floor covered in lube would have relatively similar effects as this regolith and wheel combination, but without the need for wheel limitations. It's an impractical game, but it might be preferred by some for having less robot design limitations (even though the effect is the same).

Sorry for all of the numbers and crap, I just felt that it would be quicker than writing a thesis paper on the subject and assaulting you with another wall of text. Not that this is short anyway...

I don't hate this game. I like the idea of making the robots goalpieces and such, I just think the overall game idea was influenced by the goal of making it a simulation of driving on the moon to the point of being detrimental to other aspects of the game. I just think the GDC could have done better.

For example, deployment size limitations. Obviously, the GDC wants to prevent decapping/blocking and also wants to keep everything safe for collisions by forcing robots not to have stuff sticking out. I would argue that although they probably already reasoned that an arm manipulator is a bad design choice for this game (I agree), they don't need that rule to achieve their objectives. Just make blocking/decapping a penalty if done intentionally, and give penalties for dangerous manipulator positions during collisions (as if smashing your arm against another robot's frame was something that you wanted to do anyways). Presto, same effect achieved, very few people will actually build far out of the protection area of the bumpers, and no one will complain about deployment restrictions. Some might complain about the possibilities of new penalties, but I think it would be worth it just for the freedom, even if few will take serious advantage of it.

Hope that was a little clearer...

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 

How do you know what Lunacy's objective are? Unless you are part of the GDC and went through the process of designing the game, I don't think you can accurately know the objectives. Honestly, I skimmed through the rest of your post because you were comming from an unsupported premise.

I have read too many people say things like "Lunacy is suppose to do this, but doesn't so its a bad game". A good example of this the percieved attempt to level the playing field. I don't remember in the rule book that the game is suppose to level the playing field. I think the criticism of the game that it doesn't level the playing field are really irrelevent. Did Aim High or any other favorite games actively level the playing field? Probably not too much, so why does Lunancy need to in order to be a good/successful game?

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 

No one knows what the GDC's actual goals are except themselves, of course. I am putting words in their mouths, but I believe it is a reasonable design criteria. We do know what FIRST's goals are:
I believe that it is rather logical to assume that any robotics competition game design can be said to be engineering challenge, since any application of a robot requires at least some minimum level of design and construction.

It IS a game with a clear set of rules, restrictions, and objectives, as described in the competition manual under section 7, The Game. In my mind, it should ideally be an interesting and fun game. The same is implied by the introduction to the competition manual under section 0.1:

However, it indeed does not state that one of the game design goals is making a fun game.

It is a simulation in at least some aspects with a moon theme. The game is called Lunacy. The most abundant game objects are moon rocks. The field is called the crater. The surface is called regolith. The coefficient of friction creates a similar effect to driving on the moon (I cannot cite this specifically, but I believe either Kamen or Flowers said this in the kickoff). It is not specifically stated that this is a lunar simulation, but there are so many intentional similarities that I am comfortable in saying that it is. But this is also an assumption key to my argument above. It is possible to argue that it isn't, but in my post above I assume that this is true.

It is most likely designed to encourage interest in technology and attract future participants. This is found in the fundamental missions statement on the FIRST website (previously quoted in this post). However, the game design itself may not be the way in which they hope to spread interest in technology. I think that is an unreasonable assumption (the competitions are the main thing that FIRST does), but it could be said that FIRST encourages interest through teams, and relies on teams to recruit more people. But the teams are formed because of the competition, and it would certainly be in the best interest of FIRST to design competitions that fostered greater interest in technology and engineering (again, as stated above). I grant that it may not be a significant design criteria for the GDC, but if their mission statement is to be believed, it should be at least present in game design decisions.

I agree that I did not support those four points initially, and thank you for the encouragement to further flesh out my position. However, I'm perilously close to writing a miniature thesis paper now with how long this is getting. It's not going to change anything, I'm just trying to get in the heads of the GDC and figure out what they were thinking and why.

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 

Oh dear. I hope you put some type of block in yours, they can drive you nuts in no time flat.

Not that I would know anything about that.

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 

The greatest individual match I saw was the finals match of the 2004 VCU regional . 977 was perched up their from the beginning of the match and 616 was pushing them all around but couldn't move them enough to get tot he bar. At the end of the match 33 came came up onto the platform and went at 616 to keep them from getting on just when it looked like they were about to make it. Time ran out so they counted tha amount of balls scored. 33/977 had 8 balls for 40 points. 616/165 had 7 for 35. 33/977/388 won the regional.

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 

it seems like an interesting game. low traction could make the game intense, or a pain in th rear

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 

There's going to be a lot of bots sliding everywhere so remember to wear your safety glasses