Chief Delphi - Game trends

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)

- Rumor Mill (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=15)

- - Game trends (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=78980)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wayne TenBrink (Post 882954)

FIRST games don't follow trends, although there are a few randomly repeating themes. However, there are some general "constants" and apparent trends in the overall FIRST program.

Randomly Repeating Themes:
- Spherical vs. non-spherical game piece (with emphasis on FRC logo shapes)
- Single game piece handling (2008, 2007, etc.) vs. Bulk handling (2009, 2006, 2005, 2004, etc.) (Gotta disagree, a lot of teams handled 3+ tetras in 2005)
- "Flat" floor (2009, 2008, 2005, etc.) vs. "Climbing required" (2007, 2006, 2004, etc.)
- Expanding robot envelope (2008, 2007, 2006 , 2005, etc.) vs. fixed robot envelope (2009, etc.) (2006 allowed expansion horizontally but not vertically)
- An unusual feature thrown in to keep us off balance (2009 floor/wheels, 2008 "hybrid" period, etc., etc., etc.)

General Constants (but never assume anything...)
- 27' x 54' field (the basic field perimeter structure is re-used each year) (Since 2005)
- 3 vs. 3 matches (drivers stations are part of the basic field structure) (Since 2005)
- Max robot starting size about 28x38x60 in, 120 lb. (fit through standard door, fit existing crates, 2 students can carry, etc.) (Exception made in 2007)
- Autonomous period, teleoperated period, end game (usually involves a different task)
- A game that works for both rookie and veteran teams (Up for debate)
- A camera that tracks a target light/color to assist in acquiring the game piece (Since 2005)
- Achieving the basic game task quickly while being defended is the key to victory (duh!) (Also, up for debate)
- No water games!

Apparent FIRST Trends:
- Cost reduction via re-use of parts, smaller venues (set up by volunteers), self-transport of robots, etc.
- Increased "value" for the money (more matches per event, more events per team, fewer teams per event)
- Summary: Michigan District format.

Wayne, I made some small changes to your themes and constants. All rather minor. The only major one being that in 2005 you were allowed to handle multiple tetras, the weight made it a pain but it was legal. A small minor one was that 2006 allowed horizontal expansion but not vertical expansion. Interestingly, 2006 and 2007 explicitly forbid FlopBots (67 in 2004/2005 and 16 in 2008) 2007 was also the year of the multiple weight/size classes. All size and weight constraints have remained relatively standard since 2005 as have 3 team alliances.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rulesall2 (Post 882846)

I agree totally. I would also like to see a team on team battle much like this year, where robotics was more like a sporting event, instead of each team trying to complete more of the task than the other. Personally i would like that better.

This is really kind of the yin / yang or balance or whatever you call it of FRC game design in my opinion. On one hand, you want a game with relative separation of tasks that are not completely dependent on your partners and opponents so that "good" teams seed high. On the other hand, you want games where the alliance has to work as a unit directly against the opponent for more exciting matches, variance between elimination matches, and emphasis on alliance selection. It's a tricky balance.

The real question is ... what are NASA's greatest challenges right now? What have they recently accomplished of great significance that can be simplified and quantified into a game? Additionally, what parts of those accomplishments are easily tailored in order to facilitate some of the other challenges facing the GDC, including improvements to the game format, regional competition format, and/or funding?

Ares I multi-stage rocket
Water on the moon

Therefore it's painfully obvious that we're facing an air, space, and/or water game this year. Time to get your spacesuits, goggles and bathing suits on!

im feeling cones so its gonna be fast.

I think part of it will be driving by camera like is being done with the Mars rovers. The only question to my mind is would there be enough band width?

The Mars rovers are mostly autonomous. There's several minutes of delay in getting radio signals to and from; they can't be "driven". Only general directions can be given. Like "drive staight", and then the rover determines whether straight is save.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol (Post 883454)

Various sources on the internet say 10 - 15 minutes, as a rough first approximation. Dave might be able to provide a more precise number. So, the delay that the driver would experience would be 20 - 30 minutes, provided there is radio access to the robot. That alone cuts out even more of the day.

Hmm. Now that would make for an interesting game. Delay the packets to the robot and back again by a couple of seconds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinSchuh (Post 883466)

The round-trip signal time for communications with the Mars Explorations Rovers varies between 11 and 45 minutes. The actual delay time depends on the relative positions of Earth and Mars in their orbits, which causes the distance between the planets to vary between (approximately) 55 million and 400 million kilometers.

-dave

-

Quote:

Originally Posted by JesseK (Post 882961)

NASA is retiring the shuttle at the beginning of next year and Lego league's challenge this year is "smart moves." If you combine this with the train based clues, you get some kind of transportation based game, moving large or heavy objects around the field. But when you think about, that's the challenge every year:rolleyes: so I don't know if my input has any meaning.

my $0.02

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricH (Post 882680)

no entanglement.

No entanglement?

http://www.thebluealliance.net/tbatv...8sdc_f1m3:mad:

Quote:

Originally Posted by BT987 (Post 883564)

No entanglement?

http://www.thebluealliance.net/tbatv...8sdc_f1m3:mad:

No entanglement allowed. If you'll notice, I was referencing the "standard" contact penalties, of which entanglement has typically been one. Whether or not it's called is a matter of judgment on the ref's part, which typically involves judging intent/tendency to have things like that happen, which is tough to do on the fly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pikat (Post 882864)

Or a game with multi-shaped game pieces? Like filling bins with balls, then putting those bins somewhere? We haven't seen that yet..

The closest to this was in 2001, when balls were put into tall goals, a larger ball was put on top of the goal, and then the goal was balanced on a teeter-totter.

See http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/17356