Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

Right now, we can convert from FTC to VRC and back in just a few minutes. Having to buy a second field kit and then bolt and unbolt panels to reconfigure it would be a real burden. We simply don't have the space to have two fields set up at the same time. I would prefer a slightly larger, rectangular field for both competitions, but having to support two different field sizes would be a non-starter for us. This season we had FTC and VRC tournaments scheduled a week apart twice so there is no really good way to share fields if they have to be frequently rebuilt for practice.

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

Just..fundamentally...I would like to see 3 vs. 3 matches brought out into FTC. I find it kind of depressing that one team has to sit out in FTC during the finals and I think that the interest in the game would spike to great proportions.

What does that mean?

1. More robots = more room and currently with 4 robots the field is crowded, so there would probably be a larger field implemented.

2. Maybe with a 3 team alliance, the alliance selection pairing will be more similar to that of FRC.

Just a thought. 3 vs. 3 always makes the game 10 times more confusing but also 30 times more interesting.

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

Along the same lines, a rectangular field would allow action to happen in certain areas of the field other than just the center. This would increase congestion on the field in certain areas, but the third robot would be able to roam free. This is often seen in FRC ... well, other than 2009 :rolleyes: :p

3v3 would also allow more matches played per team during qualifications without too much additional overhead. In either VRC or FTC, I don't know of many people who would complain about that. All IFI would have to do is implement the third set of ports on their control tower.

===

Unbolting/rebolting the VRC/FTC field wouldn't take but a small amount of time and effort. I've put up a mock FTC field in our classroom and put together official VRC fields; they're nothing special. Autonomous routines wouldn't suffer that much between the two setups, since even at the FTC championships there weren't that many teams who traversed the entire field with a purpose and successfully performed a rack dump. The perimeter for 12x12 and 8x16 fields are the same, so it's always a good option for either program with minimal fiscal impact. I don't doubt....errr hope we'll see a game in the future with a non-square field...it opens up alot of game possibilities.

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

Unless the FMS improves dramatically between now and next season, I don't think 3 vs. 3 is a good idea. There was enough trouble with 4 robots, I can only imagine 6.

If it can be made workable, however, I would love to see that.

==========================================

In a robotics competition that a nearby school entered this year called Skills Canada, the robot size could be different dimensions, I for get exactly what the numbers were, but lets say it had to fit in a 18" by 18" by 18" box OR a 18" by 12" by 24" box OR a 24" by 24" by 9" box. I thought that was an interesting system and could possibly be good in FTC.

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

If you wish to have the luxury of practicing both VRC and FTC on a single field then I can see that the 30 minute reconfiguration time I predict (to go from square to rectangular) getting annoying. However, try as I might, I'm not sure I'm exceptionally sympathetic. I believe very few teams enjoy that luxury (I guess BillW and RickTyler are two - How many more are there?).

Maybe I'm wrong and I'll get pelted with virtual bricks?

Blake

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

For those of you who can reach the point of being happy with the possibility of a rectangular version of the current field; and are ready for a graduate-level course, there is a next level of change for you to consider.

Add four panels to the current field perimeter (and put a few more floor tiles under it), and you can get into some really interesting field shapes. Take a look at Post #24 in this thread Vex Thread

The extra materials aren't cheap, but they aren't going to require a second mortgage on your house either.

I already bought the extra stuff just for fooling around at exhibitions or scrimmages.

Blake

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

i would like to be able to use duct tape on the robot, and i would also like to be able to use more motors on it. i would also be cool if the robot size would be a little larger, and the field size to be larger, not as big as FRC, but half the size. :)

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

If we were to do 3 vs 3, then the field would definitely have to be larger. ;).

Also, i'm not as bent over having more DC motors to use. FRC only gets to use 4 drive motors so we can't really complain. :D. But, I would like to see secondary motors that are more compatible with the Tetrix kit. The lego motors are...*nice* but not exactly the easiest to use.

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

I would like to see 4 square feet of aluminum or plexiglass in any ratio next year, instead of having to use 2 feet of each. I think I might have mentioned this already, if so, oops :o

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

I think that lack of prohibition of duct tape in any robot competition is a travesty among engineers. In my experience it's the first thing that many people think to use and it's the last thing replaced in a bad design. Sure, allow it for quick fixes on the field ... but don't allow it during the build season. It caused us more headache this year than any single component on our FRC bot :rolleyes:.

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

i agree completly, but it would be awsome if we could use more motors. :yikes:

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

More motors? Not necessarily
fuses for motors? Yes
Better wiring options for the motors? Yes
360 degree servos? awesome...
servos with metal innards? very good (we had several servos that had the internal gear teeth stripped - resulting in jerking motion)
More gears, drive options, etc? Yes

None of those things are necessarily game design, but they are good to have.

Game design? Something that doesn't stop the scoring... yes, descoring was allowed this year, but how many bots did you see that actually could do that?

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

Please Read the Whole Thing or just look at the Map Designs, I took some
serious Time to do all This, Thanks :p

I do some Game Programming and Design myself and I would
like the FTC competitions to have more excitement and variety.

The 2008-2009 Competition had basically Two Robot Classes
1. The Ring Tray ~ A robot with an Arm that had a Holding Tray for Rings at the End.

2. The Dumptruck (I believe us to be the First) ~ A robot with a with a bucket to hold the Rings to be dumped out later.

The 2009-2010 competition should be designed with many aspects in mind to encourage a Myriad of robot types. Maybe even encourage to get off the wheels and start crawling or even Walking!

I mean, why not have this years requirements to have to build Biped robots?

Maybe some obstacles you should have to climb, certain obstacles that cause
robot height restrictions (low clearance areas), or obstacles that rotate and move to cause sort of hectic, but invigorating, challenges.

Personally, I'm sick of all the collecting and scoring Rings.

I think the competitions should be a little more based on the design and physical ability of the robots. Have it use a little more than a chassis and a couple of wheels.


Here a couple of Ideas of my own for the Competition (Names are Variable):


Tower Terror~
Robots will Team up in a battle to the Top! Robots will have to use Blocks
(Of many different sizes) to Construct a Tower to reach a Single Goal or
Individual Goals for each team and maybe bring it Back to the Rendezvous (Or Home Goal) or just keep it in Possession.

Scoring Rules:
Getting the Goal: 20 Points:
Each block that is not touching the ground is worth 5 Points
(Blue blocks give Green team points and Red blocks give Purple team Points)
10 Points for Each Robot off the ground at the End of the Match

Autonomous Scoring:
Knocking Over an Opposing Teams Block Pile (2 Points for Block that touches
the Ground)
Stacking a Block (Of team color of Course, 5 Points for each block
that was on the ground in the beginning of Autonomous that is no longer
on the Ground)
Having a Robot off the Ground at the End of the Autonomous period (10 Points)

Here are some Drawings I did of the Map Layouts:


Green Squares are Green team Spawn Points (Areas in which the Robots Start)
Purple Squares are Purple team Spawn Points
Blue Blocks Belong to Green Team
Red Blocks Belong to Purple Team
Checkered Block is the Goal (Ring, Square, Flag, Whatever you want it to be)
Goal is Elevated Above the Field

Layout 1~ Goal in Center, Spawn surrounding in a Diamond formation
Blocks in the Corners.
Click to View Layout 1


Layout 2~ Goal on Left side of the Field, Spawns close (Could cause Autonomous ramming) Bricks placed along top and bottom of Field
Click to View Layout 2

Layout 3~ Goal in Center, Team Spawns in Corners
Blocks placed on sides, top, and bottom
Click to View Layout 3



Stairs and Slopes! (Simple Yet Challenging)
Teams will collect, yes collect, items of various shapes and sizes (I'm thinking spheres, that way they can Roll down) across slopes comprised of alternating stairways and flat surfaces. Picture below (3D Render):

Purple Squares are Purple Spawn Points (Where the robots are Placed)
and Green Squares are Green Spawn Points.
Spheres with Color indicate whose Team they belong to.

Click to View Layout


Scoring is Simple, Get your colored spheres to Your teams side, Each is worth
one point. You can also push your Opposing teams spheres to your side to
take away their Points!

Getting to the Other side in Autonomous is worth 5 Points.

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

Huh..It's nice to see that someone's cleaned up the FTC section of this forum. :D.

Um...I have NO idea what the game is going to be. But I believe that there are somethings that will be incorporated into the game.

1. Don't expect another "ring" shaped game piece. In QQ we had actual PVC rings and this year we had pucks. And in the previous year, we had balls.

I'm not so sure about the possibility of dealing with balls, but I'm expecting a unique game piece.

I think that FIRST has put a big gamble on the sensors that come with LEGO. They expected us to use the sensors in a great way, and I must say, that most teams did NOT use them to their full potential. So I am expecting that in the next game, the ones will good, functional sensors will reap the rewards.

FIRST has played around with flooring a lot. They kinda messed with the FTC flooring, and they totally changed the FRC flooring, but I'm not expecting the flooring type to change. I'm pretty sure FIRST has had enough of funky flooring.


Well..that's my $.02 :D

Kick off - 9/12/09

Roughly 2 more months to go!!!

Re: [FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design
 

Since there's a required "game sensor" for this year... you can bet that a) sensor use will be required, and b) the scoring piece(s) will be unusual!