Re: Next Year's Game?
 

I'd like to see a CTF like game. Get a game piece from the opponent's goal, put it in a fairly precarious place on your side, and if it stays for 5 seconds, you've scored it.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

On one Bill's blog he hinted that the game next year might involve water.
I personally would live this idea, but too much water might ruin robots....

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

It would be great to continue to see a game where you have human player involvement, similar to 2003 and 2005 where you had the pressure pad. It sort of emulates how we need to interact with technology and build it so that it best helps us.

I'll get off my robot soap box now....woah wait, robots climbing boxes? Alliance furthest up in the air gets points? Could be intriguing!

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

This gets joked about every year. The hint was too blatant to take seriously.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

ya terrain would be a major part of a ctf type game, like a hill in middle maybe and some rough offroad spots or like slick stuff. make it really intresting.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

The moving platforms and "pillows" were in the 1999 game. The moving platforms were called pucks and also had poles on the side that teams got extra bonus points for cantilevering on (hanging off of) and pillows were called floppies these were bags made of fabric that were filled with packing peanuts and had velcro attached in the middle and on the perimeter I think.

And yes it did make for an interesting game.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

This years game was really hard to scott and it was kinda boaring to watch. maybe next year it could have less human player action, it should be a more difficalt task. I like the floor and think we should use it again next year.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

With regard to a water game. I think it will be next to impossible to get permission from most school districts to have a pool of any type in or near a school as a practice field that is not completely fenced and locked (from a liability standpoint). If your school is not lucky enough to have a pool (ours is not) the cost would be prohibitive and all public pools are closed in January and February. Just a thought.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

I can really imagine a ctf type match in which the two alliances are so good that nobody scores. 0-0 on Einstein?

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

I love these ideas. But the most important thing (to me) is to have a game that is interesting (and easy to explain) to the audience. Aim High and Overdrive seemed to fit this bill. It is important to keep up outside interest (for sponsors and political purposes) so we need to make it captivating to our audience. Any one have ideas on that? :confused:

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

Well, I'm imagining some kind of ramps that you get points for being on at the end of the match. Perhaps the flag must be balanced on top of a pole on a ramp ?

For that to work there has to be some incentive not to be on the ramp, though... such as getting more flags!

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

My idea for next year's game since I am involved with severe weather up here is a severe weather themed game.

The robot would have a rotating tornado down the middle of it and using some means (suction or mechanical) would pick up "hail stones" or something similar to the poof ball game piece and once up at the top the shooter must then score by firing said game piece, score on a fixed goal or on a chaser robot? With of course the chaser robot trying to avoid.

Human players could assist in some way with the hail stones.

The scoring could somehow be related to the Fujtia scale that tornadoes are rated on.

No trailers, need a faster paced game, faster speed for the robots, not so that every robot gets knocked over but a bit more intensity would be nice, more action and scoring and a less cluttered field than this year.

The rotating funnel cloud or "tornado" once the cloud makes contact with the field could also pick up hail stones from the field as well and score, not just score with it's allotment of pre-loaded pieces.

I'll let someone else add were and how they would like to see lightning and thunder introduced to this game.:)

Hopefully someone from FIRST reads this and I've just saved a whole lot of people a year's worth of planning and design :)

Now from a camera operator perspective....anything but white on the field floor as it's a huge problem to adjust from shooting the field to the players at the control stations and up to the stands to the stands.

Now how ironic would it be though for Team 188 "The Blizzard" to be driving force behind a tornado?

Sorry, I just had to much time on my hands this morning while I am waiting for some parts for my news/chase truck so I had to write this :)

Mark

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

Blizzard won't. Robowranglers (team 148) already did. There were some other helical loaders that were pretty fast too.

You definitely have too much time on your hands. I do too, if the first thing I thought of was that that's already been done...:D

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

What I posted was just the theme, brighter minds than me can go ahead and make everything massively complicated and write hundreds of pages of rules and tweak the idea into a game, another theme would be something green energy related or making best use of energy as afterall the whole go green thing is not going away.

and yes...one of the very rare times when I had too much time on my hands, incredible.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

Echoing a whole bunch of other people:

1. Not getting penalized for being good! (Is your boss going to punish you for blowing away the competition and making the company a lot of money?)
2. A game where the robot is more important than the human player (isn't this the FIRST Robotics Competition?)
3. A game where we can unfold again! (I understand why they did it this year, but the games were a lot better when we could unfold.)
4. A game where autonomous and the end mode matter more. (This year, autonomous and the end mode amounted to "let's run away so we don't get score on more").

Definitely seemed like this year's game was meant to even the odds between rookie and veteran teams.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

[quote=StevnIndustries;856642]Echoing a whole bunch of other people:

1. Not getting penalized for being good! (Is your boss going to punish you for blowing away the competition and making the company a lot of money?)

If you work in news, believe me "I've been there" and that's about all I can say in a public forum but yes I have seen some who do well get dumbed down and held back for just that, blowing away the competition too often. When I read about that rule it sure hit home believe me although I doubt they out that rule in there for that reason or but then again it sure teaches you that being too good in a certain area can cause others to react negatively.

I don't agree though with that type of rule, no one should be penalized for being too good, if someone or some team IS too good then it just gives others something to study and work up to that level or at least try but knowing that you might be penalized leads to not wanting to try so hard.

m

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

Apparently I'm not one of them

I've said it before, and I'll say it again ... That rule is not a penalty, it is a condition. Teams need to pay attention to that condition and make a decision as to if it's worth it or not to 2x or 3x their opponents score.

FIRST is about people and inspiration, not robots.

On this, we completely agree.

I'd like to see this as well, however the last few times that the endgame mattered people complained that it was worth too much (ramps in '07, hanging in '05).

really? Then please explain 67 and 217 dominating their tournements. This year threw a curveball at the veterans, true ... but it, in no way, leveled the playing field, nor should the GDC try and level the playing field. IMHO

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

Yes, the rule is a condition, but the effects of said condition are penalizing. What you say is true about making a decision of whether or not is it worth it to outscore an opponent by two or three times their score, but not in a game like this. The score was extremely hard to measure until after the game was finished and the balls were counted. I do not think that the drivers had enough time to make an accurate judgment based on an estimation of moon-rocks in three different trailers. Also, with the risk of having the opposing alliance score super-cells, it was a much better option in most cases to just score as much as possible.

This is very, very true. However, during the actual game, one would think that the robots, not the humans, should be the ones doing most of the scoring. Compared to last year, human players had an infinitely larger role, especially with this year's endgame.



I would love to see a more intense autonomous period and an endgame as well. There were virtually no incentives to scoring in autonomous this year, apart from scoring on an immobile trailer (and that's only if the opponent's robot's autonomous mode did not last the whole period and if your robot had target-tracking and some darn good code.) Also, GDC seemingly took the massive amounts of points scored in the endgame the past few years into account. Overdrive's endgame bonus seemed completely fair and balanced last year. While it's true that some teams carefully loaded super-cells into their robot during the last twenty seconds, most teams left them in the hands of their HP's. Again, I don't think that the HP's should have played such a large role. (That's not to say cross-court super-cell shots weren't epic!)

Very true again, regarding 67 and 217. Though off the top of my head, I can think of numerous rookie teams that did just as well if not better than most of the veterans: 2753, 2775, etc. While it's true that veterans generally have had the upper hand, this year things seemed to be a bit different. I don't want to generalize teams, but as a whole, I saw more two and three digit teams fall to 4-digit teams than last year; heck, four digit teams in the 2000's to be more precise. I recall two teams (2655 and 2415) overcoming the 1st alliance in the quarterfinals at Peachtree. They went on to win the regional, with 2415 winning a second regional at Palmetto. 2775 made it to the finals of their division, and 2753 was on Einstein. These are just examples I experienced personally. There are probably many more that I can't think of. I do think that the playing-field was leveled this year, and I think FIRST was right in designing a game that did so.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

next years game should be SOCCER! the robots have to try to score on the opposing teams goal while their goalie trys to prevent it.
:) :) :cool:

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

O_O
very interesting....

Curtain Game
 

Here's my game idea:

The field is divided in half down the center (between driver stations) by a large black curtain (permanently attached to the floor), the curtain has opening on each of the far sides (by the human players)with ramps leading into the gaps, and a opening 1/2 or 2/3 robot starting height beside each. (the openings in the curtain are at the edges, so that it is hard for driers to see through them).

The robots would collect scoring objects on their own side (the side of the curtain their drivers where on), and score on the other. The drivers would be challenged to score, because they could only tell where their robot was, based on communication from teammates, debugging lights, and potentially (I don't know if FIRST would be willing to do this) laptops attached to the drive system, allowing the robots to send back video :ahh:.

The scoring object could be anything, my suggestion would be posts that you have to stick into holes, or some other manipulation intensive scoring challenge.

It would increase defense (because you have the advantage of sight when defending, making it easier and more worthwhile). Allow programing innovations (scoring using semi-autonomous routines, because its hard ot control scoring manually without *much* vision.). Increase the importance of humans through teamwork (Human players, could communicate with their drive teams), while letting the robots score. And the challenge would mix up strategies and ideas, challenge drive teams, and require innovative design and building, while allowing openings for rookies, to work in easier, but just as vital positions, like defense.

Stretching FIRST to the limit and creating a new fun FRC game.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

Everything Lunacy wasn't :P

Re: Curtain Game
 

i think this is a fantastic idea. it would prove a great challenge, and if FIRSt allowed the feedback of video cameras, the system would prove a greater challenge because the drivers would have to be able to swtich their perspective of vision every time the crossed to the other side of the field form which they are already on. but posts might not be the best choice unless you could make sure that they did not harm the robots.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

Where do you submit ideas to the GDC.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

For FRC or FTC? For FRC, the Game Design forum here is checked every now and again by GDC members. They may or may not use anything in there.

I'm not sure about FTC, though.

Be warned, though: I don't know who the FTC GDC is, but they may or may not also check said forum for ideas...

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

No, I'm wondering where you can talk the the FRC GDC

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

In which case, the FRC Game Design subforum here on Chief Delphi. As a matter of fact, by tradition, they post threads about "YOU Design the [next year] Game!" sometime around this time of year. They'll give some idea of what they're looking for in the particular topic of discussion, and then various CD members post their crazy ideas for games, technology, automation, etc.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

Ehh, I'd rather not see a similar end game bonus that has been previously used (2007, many teams had ramps).

FTC's end game bonus was ramps this year i believe.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

i'd like to see a game that more strongly goes to help "green-up" car design and fuel emissions/ideas. if we could have a game to help with that, then maybe FIRST could also help the auto industry in this damaged economy.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

Thinking of ways that the FIRST program can help with global challenges such as your suggestion/example that you've offered, is really cool. It is visionary and reflects big picture thinking. I don't get to see a lot of posts that really think outside the bot like this and it just made my day. Total.

Thank you, TJ.

Jane

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

your welcome. i just think that i should try to help get such a big organization as FIRST to help the BIG problem of the economy, and the easiest way to start off, help the auto industry. its the industry that to me, needs the most immediate help.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

Putting it out 4 nest year we should do something for the the envriment lets GO GREEN

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

Personally, I think that any game challenge that provides students with an opportunity to learn and demonstrate problem solving skills on multiple levels is more important than selecting a single issue to focus on. Not to down play the auto industry but there are other sectors of the economy that are hit just as hard or harder. I'd prefer if the FIRST Robotics Competition stuck with helping people recognize that science, math, engineering and technology are viable options and inspiring them to follow those pursuits.

Game Suggestions:

• A fun, fast paced game
• A meaningful autonomous that has an impact on the outcome of the game (either by awarding points, triggering an event or both)
• At least 2 different types of surfaces for the robot to interact with besides the driving surface (different size/shape game pieces, goals, pull up bars, etc.)
• Multiple ways to earn points (to the degree that an average team would have to choose which way they would score)
• A dramatic end game event (pull up bar in '04/ ramps in '06... needs to be a "Are they going to make it?" feeling)

Robot Suggestions:

• No more kitbots (If your robot came from a box and assembly was measured in hours maybe FTC or VRC is for you.)
• No more bumpers (Bring back the days when winning the Motorola Quality Award meant something...)
• Unfolding robots
• Additional weight to compensate for the new control system

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

No argument from me there. In a Rumor Mill thread, anything is possible to think about, even big picture thinking regarding solving problems and accomplishing tasks at hand.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

I love this thread. You never know which direction its going next. The reason I started this thread so soon after Atlanta is that:
1. I enjoy seeing all of the ideas and, although some may be worn, some are fresh and I do love those.
2. I decided that the quicker I started it, the more avid the response would be because even though some want to get away from the fast pace for a while, others are even more enthused at this time.
3. Its never too early to start dreaming.

Keep the ideas flowing. You never know, someone on the GDC may be watching! :D

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

I agree with everything other than these two points, the kitbot allows you to at least meet the bare minimum requirement for competition. All teams HAVE to move in order to compete. Remember, the competitions is the means to an end. While I agree with the thought that some FRC teams would be better off competing in FTC and VRC I have come to accept that the vision of FIRST is that all students have access to this program.


The low weight limit is to force us into creative thinking. Though, I was a fan of 2007 with the multiple weight classes. Perhaps make weight a function of initial volume.

Actually, yeah we do, see that nice box down at the bottom that tells us who is reading here? :) (Yes Im just giving you a hard time)

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

an ovoid game piece.


they would be hard to throw and pick up. maybe nerf footballs. this would really make for some interesting shooting mechanisms and/or a lot of dumpers.

also another good game piece would be something akin to a cube (no square game piece since '03)

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

1. I think Lunacy was pretty fast paced, so was Overdrive. I hope they can do it again.
2. While I would like to see auton have an actual difference in the game's outcome, I didn't mind it this year. Maybe that's due to our ability to actually make a good auton program.
3. Yes! That would be awesome! I joined in 2007, I wish I could have played 2004 with the stairs and the pull-up bar.
4. I think that would be cool too. I liked the scoring in 2007 and 2008. Hope they come up with something like that again.
5. I liked the end game this year. Waiting for the supercells to be thrown in was really cool. Plus, if it missed, you had less than 15 seconds for the robot to pick it up and get it in a trailer.
6. NO! As a team who has used a kitbot for god knows how many years, I actually find this post offensive. While we generally use our own wheels and manipulator parts, we have always made a kit-chassis simply because we can't afford a custom one. However, I can always design something good from it, even though it might not be "original". Were they to take away the kit, that would really discriminate against the poorer teams and almost guarantee that only well funded, veteran teams win.
7. Again, I heartily disagree. Bumpers allow robots to run into each other without too much damage. It makes for a better game when they can ram each other without penalties of almost un-reparable damage. I feel that a lack of bumpers would again discriminate against poorer teams who can't afford to build something quite so robust.
8. That, however, would be awesome if we could do that again. I do think that this year's bots looked pretty cool; also, there was less chance of total robot destruction (he said from experience).
9. I kind of agree, but I also understand where they're coming from with the same weight limit. It makes us think outside the box, even though it might be difficult. This is FIRST, after all.

I would love a weird shaped game piece. It would make designs so much more innovative, instead of seeing the same basic thing over and over again.

Now as for me, all I really want is a game where good defense is a must. My team can build an awesome defensive bot, but rarely are we ever awarded for it. Even this year, when defense was key, we didn't get picked in Philly, even after proving our excellent defensive capabilities. Next year, I hope that the GDC offers more of a benefit for teams who want to make more defensive bots.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

I think a Capture-The-Flag style game would be kind of neat, teams that played on the defensive could be rewarded just as much as the teams that played offense, plus it would make working together in an alliance that much more critical

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

Ooh, that would be cool. I think it could offer some really intense gameplay as well. Also, it would be really easy to explain capture the flag style games to those outside of FIRST.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

All I'm going to say to this is, defense wasn't necessarily key this year; it was the combination of offense and defense. Also, as soon as the GDC makes a highly defensive game, the offensive specialists will start complaining about "brickbots" damaging them and winning just by driving around. (Or you get the team that thinks this is Battlebots--but a few penalties will often keep them in line.)

You have to have a balance of offense and defense, or the game is going to be really annoying to a lot of people. See 2001's 4v0 game or 2003's king-of-the-hill game. (Granted, 2003 wasn't all defense, but a defensive robot could sure beat an offensive robot with great ease!)

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

Whatever the game is I think it should be easily engaging for the person who hasn't seen a FRC game before, For example, Aim High, Rack and Roll, and Overdrive all were action-packed and entertaining to watch. Lunacy was in my opinion, a bit dull compared to previous challenges, in Overdrive the audience could easily tell when an alliance scored and who had won at the end. The outcome of a Lunacy match doesn't have that same effect.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

ok, well i like the more driver oriented things, cuz i am the driver....but what about use of the regolith and the carpet since they have spent so much money on it lol, and moveable things that your have to put in specific locations....or a mix of all the past games

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

Well, of course defense shouldn't be the only factor in a game, but I really think it should be important. Some teams just don't realize that the ability to take a robot out for the entirety of a match is important, which I think is silly.

What exactly do you mean when you say this year defense wasn't key? I think it was the most important this year than is has been in the past three. When 423 started playing defense in Philly, we won all of our matches hands-down.

I really liked Lunacy, since watching the mega-dumps was really fun. I don't understand what people mean when they say that it was hard to explain the game this year; have more balls in your opponents' trailers than yours at the end of the game; also, green balls are worth more than the purple ones. Also, how was it easier to tell who had won an Overdrive match versus who had won a Lunacy match? Sure, you could keep count better in Overdrive, but you could easily see the score for yourself on the field in Lunacy.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

Levels!
not just little end ramps or something, but series of levels, maybe like a king of the hill type game where you have to keep your robot specific game pieces in the circle at the top of 3 levels of platforms, i know this might lead to robot destruction but im sure the game design people could figure something out


oh and maybe isntead of two alliances of 3 how bout 4 alliances of two

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

Simple, really. You HAD to score to win. Even playing defense, you had to score to win. Scoring is offense, at least in this game. (It isn't always; 2005 is a prime example of defensive scoring...) So if you're playing defense most of the time, you have to be a) pinning, b) hoarding, c) harassing, or d) blocking most of the time, not scoring or loading, which the offensive robots did a lot. This takes you away from scoring-type things and may make you an easier target, depending on conditions.

Or, as an example of how defense doesn't win matches, 330. They played defense most of the time in many of their matches. But, they spent automode loading up, and gulped down any ball they happened to drive over. Once or twice a match, they stopped playing defense (or delayed starting) and SCORED. Scoring is offensive, remember?

Defense was also important in 2007. Keeping opponents from scoring, blocking them from doing the same to you, that's defense. Lots of it happened in 2007.

And, one final note: When a great offensive machine meets a defender, the defender merely slows the pace of the offensive machine. It cannot stop the offense, unless it is a truly great defender. There are still a few offensive machines that WILL BEAT A DEFENDER. Lots of teams played defense against 330 in 2007. Lots of teams also lost to said team, even 3 vs 1 against 330. Same with 1114 in 2007. Same with 67 this year. Same with 25 in 2006. The thing that most scares me is an offensive machine those drivers know when to play defense.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

I'd like to see the return of the Robocoach function, for instance you could receive bonus points during teleoperated mode for having the robot perform functions by itself, like picking up a game piece or scoring could count for 1-2 points extra.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

Heh: http://www.vexrobotics.com/vex-clean-sweep.shtml

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

we tried to have our robot do that in Lunacy, with function of the camera, to drive up to an opponent's trailer when it was locked on. the one problem from that problem was when we were told that we could not receive data from the robot. so that function was never used.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

I think that this years' game proved to be one of the most defensively-minded yet! Many games have offered the decision between scoring points vs. preventing the opponent from scoring. Every ball you prevent your opponent from scoring in Lunacy is exactly worth the value of one ball scored yourself (as was the case in 2008, 2006, and others...the nonlinear scoring in 2005 and 2007 made this a bit more complicated).

But this was the first game where defense ALSO contributed to scoring in a pretty direct way. Pinning an opponent to the corner not only prevented him from gathering and scoring balls, it also made for an easy scoring opportunity for human players and friendly robots. (Granted the pinning robot was therefore also a target, but a good defensive bot could make sure the pin was happening in a favorable spot on the field)

At the regional (and even Nationals) level scouting can be hit or miss, so sometimes the non-"flashy" machines are unfortunately overlooked. It's happened to us before, too. And many folks tend to think of defense as something that "anyone" can do, so they pick somebody who is above average offensively and try to force-fit them to that role. But that is simply not true, and I have many friends with medals who can tell them otherwise.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

Our rookie year it came home to haunt us. We were the third seeded team at Denver and could choose our alliance. Unfortunately, we chose bots that were similar to ours. :o Any veteran team will tell you the key to winning is to select a complimentary team. This will usually include one bot that is good at defense (Though not necessarily a bot designed entirely for defense) and two good offensive bots.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

I was wondering, if there is a mass amount of robotics teams in the near future, will alliances in future games be four robots instead of three? It was just a thought.

"\__(O.o)__/" <--- (shrugging face)

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

Maybe, I just don't think for a while. They would have to make the fields bigger, and that would mean more cost to set up, less ability for small venues to set up (off-seasons) and such. Just be patient, I think in the future it will happen.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

It all has to do with value - the cost per match. More robots per match is one way to get each robot out there more often, bringing the average cost down. In 2005 we went to 3 on 3 because FRC had grown to the point that the cost per match got too high.

While 4 on 4 is definitely a possibility as we continue to grow, we have also seen in the past year that something like FIRST in Michigan's model is another way to increase value, with several other side benefits.

Besides, the field can already look crowded with 6 robots. ;)

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

Keep the size of the field, reduce the size of the robots competing or have an interchange of sizes depending on the role of the robot on the field.

This is going to go over like a lead balloon.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

I was thinkint the same thing. If you want 1/3 more robots on the field, you could reduce the robot sizes by 1/3.
OCCRA in MI runs at about 2/3 the FRC dimensions. Much smaller than that and I think the bots loose too much presence. OCCRA fans are allowed to be pretty close to the Action. Going much smaller would seem too close to VEX, FTC, or BEST.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

Yup. I was thinking about 1/3 smaller, no more. Not VEX, FTC, or BEST size.
But a little smaller if the competition were to go 4 vs 4, would be interesting and less confusing, visually. It would also add new challenges. I do like the idea of mixing up the sizes a bit but for a multi-purpose/layered event but I really do like the GDC folks and wouldn't want to give them any more headaches than they already have.

That said, I'm thinking kind of like tag-teaming and FLL put together. This robot has to perform this task, then go back and tag its alliance partner to perform the next task. Points would be awarded for completing tasks and could be awarded for time taken to complete as well. During build, the robot could be designed to be able to complete all the tasks or specific ones.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

There could be bonuses for thinking inside the limits and outside the refrigerator box.

Would be a pain in the butt administratively but weight classes would be cool, alliance consists of 2 full size and 2 smaller bots

or

Is it within 2/3 of max dimensions? yes = Bonus

Is it under 90lbs? yes = Bonus

or

the field could be designed to make being smaller an advantage at some point (2003 had the limbo bars on the sides of the ramps)

Might make it interesting not having 6, 120lb refrigerator boxes out there.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

Not at all. If you made both the robots and fields smaller, it would probably reduce cost per student AND the cost of putting on regional events.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

Total Chaos.

OCCRA last year played a football related game that was rather interesting. One of the most interesting aspects was the footballs did things that no teams were expecting that created interesting mobility issues.
3 vs. 3 or
4 vs 4.

In my game, the field would be divided into 2 halves with only a line down the middle and a 6 foot circle in the center. Each side would start out with 20 footballs on the floor. For every ball scored, 2 balls will be thrown into the opposing alliances 1/2 by a random launcher. Bots are not allowed to go Off-sides during the first minute. The second minute is wide open. Bonus for any bot completely inside the circle at the end of the match.

Also, I would go back to a 2 bot classification system. Tall bots (standard size), but 100 lb limite, and squat bot (under 3 foot), but they can be 120 lbs.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

So sort of like a SUMO competition? How would the balls be scored? What about adding heavy objects that the robots can use to gain traction in the end game? I like it.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

Scoring, I was thinking like Aim High but use a field goal instead of a hoop. Possibly have two lower goals like aim high also.

It is totally derivative of the OCCRA game last year, but the football was a really neat and challenging game piece.

yeah the end bonus would be if you crossed Sumo with a Rugby Huddle (I forget teh name). 2 to 8 bots trying to occupy the same 6' circle for the bonus. With it being 6', this would make it too difficult for a team to take in the first minute without taking a line fault penalty.

I love the idea of bonus weight playing pieces! Maybe have several 16LB of bowling balls out there that teams could use. Really available, toungh, and difficult to handle. Or you could have a bowling ball ( hard and round so it will be dynamic)(16 lb), a box of rocks (partially filled for a shifting CG piece) (20 lb), and a kevlar bag of sand (heavy and amorphous) (40 lb).

You could be light and agile during the first minute, and then put one your robot Sumo suit (bag box and ball would add 76 pounds!).

What if the center circle was a different material than the carpet?????

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

Im really liking this idea. Maybe you should suggest it for OCCRA next year. I would love to see this game played out.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

I will talk to the organizers. I really liked their game last year. It was a lot of fun to watch. They couldn't do footballs 2 years in a row, but I am sure we can find an equally interesting game piece.

I am still holding out for a game with CONES!!!!

Picture a stadium full of cone-heads.....

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

I really like the idea of heavy, unwieldy game pieces. It would be great if they didn't have to be handled to make points, then that would allow more bot designs, if there was another aspect to the game. Only problem is that 40 lb. Kevlar bags of sand and 20 lb. bags of shifting rocks would be incredibly difficult for teams to get for personal practice.

Heh, that would be funny. It would be like this year, all of the people with the hats made of white and pink trailer pole jawns.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

Footballs? Maybe Nerf Footballs? LOVE IT!! Easy to obtain and hard to predict! GDC, pay attention! ::safety::

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

Maybe you could have a game with like a bunch of really tall posts of varying heights throught the field or in the center and have to shoot rings on to them?

Or like having to shoot frisbees into bins high off the ground? Like frisbee-golf or ultimate frisbee or whatever its called...

And I love the idea of ridiculiously large or small objects... or how about both? All pieces are the same shape but there are a ton of small ones, a bunch of normally sized ones and a few monster sized pieces?

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

This would be epic. I would love to see a field covered in little tiny pieces, being massively scored, while a few boulder sized pieces get rolled around by the more able robots. Would make for interesting spectating.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

I want too see more speed and robot contact something that involves pinning and so on...
Less human interaction
and yes traction

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

[quote=Mark Rozitis;856768]Only in communist nations

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

Realistically, I think it is apparent that physical contact between robots is a key part of a successful game. Additionally, when dramatic things happen, like giant balls flying through the air or robots colliding at high speed, the audience will become much more interested. Any game that contains enough of these exciting elements will help FIRST grow. I think the GDC has been getting better at this, and the highly effective robots playing Lunacy were all very exciting to watch.

Adding more Robots to the field in a match, or Economizing the program in general is not the direction FIRST should be taking. If many American schools can build stadiums for school football teams, it seems reasonable that they should be able to pay the FRC entry fee every year.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

Next year their should be three allinences and they should use the light thing like they did a couple of years ago.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

I am hoping for less human player and like others said, a floor like FTC had where only parts were different. There were certain places on the field with different flooring.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

What, you want a 2v1?

I'm sure you have mentors who were around in 1998 or before. Ask them what happens when you have 3 teams on the field. Now, multiply by number of teams per alliance. Meet the alliance system...

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

Yeah, I have to agree. I wasn't around physically, nor were any of my mentors, but judging from the videos I've seen, the 1v1v1 games mostly turned into 2v1. I don't think that's much fun, so I much prefer the 1v1 alliances they have in place now.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

I'd like to see flying robots (it might be possible)

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

Possible? It's absolutely possible.

Probable? Probably not ... mostly because of the safety issues (especially e-stop issues).

But I, too, would love to see a flying robot.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

How ironic seeing as C.O.R.E. 2062 got the UL Safety Award at 10K Lakes AND WI regional.

I would like to see flying bots though if the safety issues were resolved.

Maybe a large net made of steel cables or teflon . . .

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

I personally believe that the use of spherical objects in first comes out of necessity. They are readily available and rather easy to build an easily followable and captivating game around. Therefore I believe that the game for next year should include a spherical game piece; however, I believe it should also include another less comfortable game piece (cones? or cubes?) that will be introduced into the game in smaller quantities and be worth a premium in points.
As for the spherical game pieces they should come in three colors red, blue, and white. Each alliance has a set number of balls of their color, say 15, that as you score them they are recycled into play and each alliance can not score the other alliance's game pieces and are only allowed to hold such a piece for a short period of time to prevent an opposing robot from collecting and possessing all of the opposing alliance's game pieces for the entirety of the match. The white balls would be usable by both teams and introduced in a larger quantity, around 60 when they are scored they are not recycled back into play and they are worth fewer points. At each end of the field there are two stationary goals placed in the corners Each goal has a light above it that turns on randomly for an interval no shorter than 10 seconds yet the total duration that they are on totals 1 minute 30 seconds, both lights will be off for a period of 5 seconds when the light is changing. Game pieces can be scored through the lit goal for a greater number of points and through the other for a minimal number of points. There are also two small goals at the edge of the field that amount to a 2 foot wide slot 18" up on the lexan wall that may be scored in for a small number of points slightly greater than the raised goal whose light is off. Balls scored in these goals are not recycled into play.
Now for the unusual game pieces. There are five of these pieces on the field the number is designed to promote end game strategy. Four of them are placed in corners on hinged ledges beneath the lit goals. These pieces are worth a sizable number of points and each robot may only possess one at a time. They are designed to be unwieldy and to make other scoring difficult when in possession of them making the time at which they are obtained very important. The fifth piece is placed in the middle of the field on a slightly raised platform. These pieces are to be colored a striking purple.
In this game the autonomous period would be extended to 30 seconds and the teleoperated mode would be 2 minutes. Also the robot size limitations should shrink, but the robots would once again be allowed into an orientation not necessarily contained in the bumper zone.
A game like this, in my opinion, would be fun to watch and hopefully to compete in.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

I like your way of thinking. It seems to be well thought out with several different objectives that can be attempted based on the team's capabilities. One other variable that can be added is to have the white balls of a different size, just to make things a little more difficult. :p

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

I'm going to disagree with your first point. In 2003, teams had no trouble finding the game object in sufficient quantities for two teams to set up a field between them. (Keeping the Sterilite containers intact, however, was another story. We had about 30 at Kickoff, and about 3 after the season.) Same sort of thing in 2007 (and 1997, too, I think). The only other two games with non-spherical game objects that I can remember, 2005 and 1999, the teams got plans from FIRST and had to build their own.

I'm with you on the out-of-bumper perimeter spec. I don't know about the size shrinking (it's hard enough to fit everything as it is), but I'd like to see the multiple size/weight classes return.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

So this is what it is going to come down to. Every three years they bring a certain type of game back.

06 & 09 = Game was determined by scoring multiple balls
05 & 08 = Was determined by raising a game piece
04 & 07 = Was determined by the robot itself

So what we might be looking for is a game that it will come down to how the robot can do something, either by itself (like hanging), or with the help of their alliance members (raising them up).

I think it would be nice if they threw everything out of the window, and invented a game that had the mindset of "Aim High" and "Raising the Bar" together.

Keep the carpet idea because teams learn more on the basis of carpet, then add the hoops like Aim High did, and maybe even a couple moveable trailers that you can move around the field. Then having bars set on each side of the field that the robots can hang from, either having to score on the opposite side of the field, or even right in front of you.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

By that logic:

2004 was just hanging on the bar (and those purple and yellow balls meant nothing), and 2007 was just ramps (and that big obstacle in the middle meant nothing). Please note that 2003 did not even have balls on the field, and if you could raise a goal more than about 2 inches in 2002, you were really doing well. And what about 2001, when your score was based on how fast you completed the task?

That's not the pattern, if there is one.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

Although the game pieces weren't large or heavy in '07, they were still being raised like in 05 and 08. I do see that 09 and 06 were similar because of pickup mechanisms and ball storage containers etc. 08 was weird because there was no defense and it was a race, I still liked it though. 05 reminded me of 07, lifting game pieces, defence and then going to your home zone to either get on a ramp or just stay there.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

The more I think about it, the more I love EricVanWyk's ball sorting idea.

Imagine two goals on opposite ends of the field. Some sort of obstacle/endgame item in the middle (a 4x4 all the way across the field? A ramp? A bar to hang on?). FIRST Frenzy-esque ball chutes that release a mixture of white and black (for example) balls.

Red wants the black balls in goal 1 and the white ones in goal 2. Blue wants the white balls in goal 1 and the black ones in goal 2.

Robots can sort the balls themselves using their sensing capabilities, or they can give the balls to their human players to be sorted by hand and re-deposited into the robots or the goals directly. Or, maybe you decide to build a robot that selectively picks up only a certain color of ball. Or...

I get really excited thinking about how various teams would try and solve this problem.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

Robot Dance-Off!!!

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

you just never know what the game will be:)

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

Hey, I know this is kinda off topic, but for who started this thread, and for all those who are continueing it, it REALLY helps when you are trying to make up a game. (Here in Milwaukee, we have this thing called Milwaukee Mentor Vex Challenge (MMVC). Its part of the Midwest Vex Programs (MVP) and its where the students make a game for the Mentors to play. When we were trying to figure out if our game would be good, we judged according to what you guys said about this years game/criteria for next years' games.) Big Thanks. :)

Katie

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

i think next year game should be something off the wall that no one will ever see coming

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

Glad you can make use of it. I started it mainly because I like to see new ideas flowing and keeping people thinking outside of build season. I also like to imagine some of the games that people come up with. Good luck with the Vex games.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

For the FRC game next year, since in Atlanta last year they announced that there was going to be some add-ons like temperature sensors, it should be something where all the robots on one alliance can communicate to each other, since that was an original specification in the control system, and you have to use the camera, and each driver for a team has an individual curtain.

Then you have to use your laptop, connected to the DS, and look through the robot's eyes, and scout out (from the opposite side of the field to tear down your curtain) if done in autonomous you get bonus points of course, and most importantly the curtains would have to be a color the robot can track. Once teleop starts the curtains all are dropped, and then the object is turned into capture the flag, where robots are required to get the opponents curtains (each alliance would have to have a different colored curtain of course). Then robots would have to go and take the opponents curtains to their side, and of course, your alliance could take them back to your own side. Whoever had the most curtains on their side of the field would win.

Side Note: robots would all have to have some kind of tagging thing, like a 'tagging stick', where the robots held it (it wouldn't be long, maybe a 1/2 foot, 6 inches) and if the robot was able to tag the opponent on their side of the field with the stick, some point deduction would be evaluated. So it would require a sense of dodging and tactical driving skill. No human players, other then the drivers of the robots, and the coaches behind the driver would be included. There would also would be a portion of the field called the 'dead zone' where no tagging happens, but your robot couldn't stay their for a long duration without getting a penalty, unless it was deactivated.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

I wanna see something totally crazy, I liked the high speed of this years game, and the concept of needing to catch up with your opponent to score, but I feel like FIRST is out of geometric shapes to use, maybe they will turn to a game like the Vex challenge this year, with regular balls and footballs.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

I wanna see cylinders....

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

May I also note that a BIG advantage would be given to those teams with crab or swerve drives.

On the same line, we need a game where nearly all advantages will be stripped except for experience and maybe the drive train. We need something completely crazy with absolutely no prior FIRST connections. Maybe stationary obstacles (Rocks, stairs, no ramps) that need to be driven over to score should be added?

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

Who said anything about STATIONARY? Make them mobile!

For those of us who were around pre-3v3, stationary is old hat-- the '06 ramps are the closest thing since 3v3 started. I'm talking the 2004, 2003, 2000 games and the like. 2001 and 1999 had mobile places to park for points. The bad news was that in 1999, you also wanted said parking space to be in a given area of the field...

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

Picture this: The field is divided in two sides one blue and on red. On each side, there is a row of triangular prisms. These are fixed to the floor at their base. There are several free prisms on the field and the game is played by pushing the 'free' prisms towards the fixed ones on the wall, interlocking them. The team with the most interlocked prisms wins.

It's a little too simple, I know, but just throwin around ideas.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

Simple is good...

And this could be a very "interesting" game if done right.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

I just wanted to let anyone know who is currently proposing ideas that involve the robot relaying video to the DS, or a computer connected to the DS, that it is unlikely this will happen. In order to maintain the speed of the Field Management System, as much of the bandwidth as possible is kept free. 6 robots worth of streaming video is not going to happen. Maybe there is another way to do something similar without the streaming video?

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

The problem with that is, not everyteam can afford a laptop to do that. I'm pretty sure our programming lappy has seen dinosaurs, unless we got a new one... and so if that were the only laptop on the team, well... I doubt it could handle video steaming. I'm not saying all we have is a stone-age lappy, but I'm thinking about teams that only have a stone-age lappy. Or no laptop at all.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

How about dodge-ball?