The games people play!
 

I believe that the debates on this thread are all very stimulating - some time during the "off season" someone starts a thread about "what would be a good game? water no water? what kind of objects? It's fun guessing, but the Chiefs have created a game every year for the last 6 years. I can tell you that we have tried frisbees, inflatable toroids (kiddie swimming tubes) boxes of varying sizes, balls of varying sizes and this year big Orange Juice Bottles! We actually called the game involving stacking color coded boxes "Whaz UP?" before Budwieser did those commercials.
I get very involved every year in the game design - its a lot harder than people realize. A few years ago, on this forum we discussed the elements needed for a fun, exciting, scalable, marketable game - including making it audience friendly (aka, scoring made easy - a stranger could walk up and see who had what score and pretty much figure out the game.
Over the years, what we have found out is this -
Water on a gymnasium floor is not a good idea, no matter how well you think you can insulate or isolate it from being damaged, so why go there? No administrator would allow it.
Game pieces that are colorful and big are better for viewing from a distance.
The shape of the object is an issue if you are trying to locate them at the start of a match - balls are not necessarily perfectly round. Objects with a flat side to them make that part easier. I like odd shaped objects, but balls are easy to get, colorful, and robust.
Objects must be robust, because the robots and the interaction with them is more rough than delicate (large motor skills like squeezing a ball are easier developed than small motor skills like controlled pick and place manipulation) The material they are made of is also important.
The other issue related to game objects is their weight. For practical reasons things that weigh alot (more than 5-7 lbs) can be a problem.
The game itself must be developed with all strategies in mind. Offensive only or Defensive dominated games can be percieved as less exciting at times (depends on who's robot it is).
For sure - the game must be easy enough for every team to be able to build a competitive robot - yet hard enough to challenge everyone.
The functions that are required of the robots (and sometimes the people) must be achievable, many different ways. Diverse solutions is the key here - no one wants to see 500 robots that all look and act alike.
So, here is where the game is really developed - driving on a flat floor, a ramp, climbing a pole, climbing a rope, balancing, depositing the scoring objects on high places, moving places, into places, over things, under things. The choices are limitless ...... thats why we will all wait and in about 8 weeks we will all find out together. I can also assure you that developing a game that is well recieved is very rewarding to those that create it. And, until its inveiled and played - you really don't know if it works the way its intended. Unfortunately, there isn't a way to please everyone.
Over the past 7 years, regardless of the format chosen - the games have been interesting and challenging - nice job, Dean, Woody, and crew from FIRST.

Ok, I'm going with a more competitive game. Definitely not like the 2000 game. I am even going to stretch out a little, and predict it to be somewhat of a 1 vs. 1 vs. 1 game. I still say the main obstecle wont be very obstructive to movement, only scoring i.e., a spinning goal. I am also going to predict that we have to manipulate more than 1 shape (cube, pyramid, sphere). And perhaps lighten the restrictions on opposing contact between machines.

Only some predictions, and a bit of wishful thinking. :)

Hmmm...
 

Hmm... I'm not sure if they are going to put the one vs. one, two vs. two etc., back into the game yet. I think FIRST is still trying to get away from the whole Battlebots thing... That was a big reason why cooperatoin instead of competition was stretched in the 2001 game. Just a thought! :D

- Katie

What if......
 

What if the field was more interactive or "mechanicaly active" (things that get moved by motors or something on the field)...I know that this would increase the difficulty of building the field for yourself but it may make for one interesting game.....

Just anoter idea that came to mind while sitting bored out of my mind in my "FIRST" period class...:D

Good idea Clark. I like the idea of a field that reacts to robots. It definitly would make for some interesting competitions not to mention be more catching to the eye - something that is a must for marketing.

~Tom~, who also wants another excuse to build something. ;)

Interesting
 

An interactive field? I like that idea :)

- Katie

Interactive fields
 

While I personally like the idea of a field that reacts to the presence of a robot, I don't think we'll see anything mechanically actuated on the field anytime soon.

Last year's interactive element (the bridge) relied on one of the most reliable things known to Man to operate, gravity, and there were still occasional problems. Bridges getting knocked off the pivot, hanging up, etc.

If you have mechanically actuated elements then the organizers have to deal with the question "What happens when it doesn't work?". Especially when the non-function is not the fault of one of the teams on the field. Do you give them a replay? If it's not vital to the conduct of the game, if it doesn't affect the final score then why have it at all? But if teams need it to score big and it doesn't work as designed, can we fault the teams for being upset?

It just opens too many cans of worms to have active field elements. Passive elements, such as the bridge, the puck, or the tower from Torrid Terror are a whole different ballgame. I expect to see more origninal ideas in that catagory.

ChrisH

Makes you think
 

After all of the celebration and emphasis put on the 10th year of FIRST in the 11th year why not just go back to the first game? (with a few slight modifications of course) or mabey combine games from the past (how about torrid terror and last years game) Who would see it coming?

hmmmmm.... I'm not too sure that FIRST would go back to a prior game. It would give veteran teams WAY too big of an advantage - I think that many rookie teams would flat out revolt.

~Tom~, who with a day could rebuild any of the previous years robots with all their parts lying around the shop.

I don't think FIRST would go back to a previous game, but they might combine elements of a past game. Yes, veterans would have an advantage if a game was recreated, but if enough changes were to be made that old robots would be ineffective, a combination game could be fair to all.

BattleCry 2
 

Dunno bout u guys that saw the BC2 game but I really enjoyed that competition. The people @ WPI did an outstanding job modifying the field and rules accordingly. The whole concept of two bridges to be captured by two teams made for an awesome game...

just a thought

-Mancuso
-Buzz

I never thought that a post that I made would spark any type of interest but heres another thought what if FIRST were to use the rules of one of their previous games with completely different pieces such as cubes or cones.

~~Or (for all of you water lovers)~~

How about using something like rubber water bags under the carpet in certain places on the field. The bags could be put into the kit of parts and setup much like the balls were last year. This way the water could be transported from regional to regional and the risk of water going everywhere would be somewhat minimized since it would be contained

Water? Fuggedaboutit
 

Personally, during my two years in FIRST, I do not think that water will be used. In fact, I'll bet my car on it. Why is everyone wasting their time talking/reading about a water field. It's a stupid idea. First of all, to encase motors and electronics and worry about waterproofing, and what if you short out a $1000 controller? "Oops, can I have a new one?" I don't think so.

However, I would like to see stairs or some sort of step in the middle of the field. 2 vs. 2 I hope. I really like the 4-team alliances, but its so hard to plan strategy in the 2 NOISY minutes before a match. Itd be much easier to coordinate 2 driving teams instead of 4.

Just my two cents. What do you all think?

-Chris

Well said Chris, I'm with you...