2002 Game Brainstorming
 

Every year FIRST seems to come up with a game that so new and so different that everyone says, wow I never would have thought of that. I'm sure those mad scientists at FIRST have already finished the game for 2002, or are now putting the finishing touches on it. The competition conifguration, number of teams, how many versus how many, size and shape of field has already been discussed. I want to know what you guys think the game will be. What object will be placed where, how many points, how much time. Hopefully this will be a big thread so please don't put in any, i agree, or yeah that sounds cool. And most of all be creative, i want to hear it all!

Im not sure.......has the community gotten their "teaser" yet?

I think footballs will be the objects of play this year.
Also i think the field will be taller, meaning your robot needs to extened more.
-Nate

I don't know exactly what will be done...

But I hope to see some diffrent scoring objects. Balls are nice and all, but something like the floppys would be much more fun for a change. Anything that requires some new ideas for how to score points.

-Andy

Water would be amazing! (but also very challenging). Having water would definitely require robots to be built well. Otherwise, a little nudge here and there might break the waterproofing and poof, there goes your electronics.

Anthony.

Me and my sparks of wisdom, I think this year will be a 2 on 2 matchup, where the object is to throw as many of your opponents balls or something to that effect out of the arena. So what you have to do is collect the yours and throw the other teams out. I doubt this will be the case but hey he said he would make the game simpler.

Re: 2002 Game Brainstorming
 

I'm not sure about this...I remember from the MI forum, it being said that they develop and tweak up the game right until the "deadline" (a couple weeks before kickoff)...that's one of the problems they run into when trying to have a full field at a kickoff remote....

They said that it would return to competative play, and that the scoring would be simplified. I would guess that because of the success of alliances, that they will maintain at least some type of alliance. As for water, I hope that the people at FIRST realizes that water and electricity do not mix well. I do also agree that footballs would be cool, but i doubt that they will use something so complex. It will have to be somehting easily grasped by big goofy robots, driven by unexperienced highschool students. So i would think that they would stay with balls, they might get bigger they might get smaller, can anyone say ping pong balls? I do like the 4vs1 idea but the scoring logistics would be tough. I don't like the 2vs2vs2 because alliances could be formed to easily and it becomes unfair for the other alliance.

Re: Re: 2002 Game Brainstorming
 

I heard the same about FIRST when they design the game... specifically, Dean/Woodie are famous for pulling a change to the game the last minute, causing the FIRST crew a lot of "trouble" when they had to finish blue prints and field objects and release them at kick off. This will potentially be deciding if the remote kick offs will have field objects present.

It all depends if those two are willing to finish the game early ;)

Hey, if they are pulling changes the last minute, it only means these two have been spending a lot of their time into the game, and putting every clever design they can think of into it. Expect a really exciting game from them !!!

field size
 

I think Everyone likes the field they have now. Its a good size and it fits into a gym very nice. Second I think they will not use water. The field must be something that any school can put together and have it fit in a small gym. Third I think teams will all start on the same side of the field again. It made it much easier for to set up the field and get teams on and off. That is an important thing to the game. For some reason I think there will be a nice big interesting structor in the middle of the field like 97, 98. It would be great to see footballs but they are far to hard for many teams to deal with. Last I think it they will use somthing other thatn all balls becase they have been use two years and a row and I think everyone is up to a new challege.
Just my thoughts.

Nick
aka (Swan)
Team 190

How about moving the Human player station into the middle of the field. Have Plexi glass surround him so that he is protected therefore the Human player can be more interactive in the late parts of the game.

As to the water suggestion, it appears to be a recurring thought. It would definitely be interesting, but think about it: water and electronics. Not a good combination. Too much potential for a safety hazard. That alone would rule out water, not even considering the logistical problems with water in the arena. I'd say for all practical purposes, water is out.

All the world is a stage.....
 

How about some kind of obstacle course / scavenger hunt.....with MANY different ways to score points-- ....field including maybe a 3 ft tall platform "the stage" where robots could earn points & collect props by climbing on top or crawling underneath......balls through hoops, frisbees through hole, rings on pole, boxes stacked on shelf....etc Ample small point props.....limited big point items.

No robot could possibly do it all.

Simple scoring.......2 pt per ball here.......3 pt per ball there......etc

Would get a WIDE variety of bots......making for very interesting alliances

I didn't think this through......but it's an interesting thought!:D

Lisa T

Ping pong balls, tennis balls and hockey pucks have been on my mind the past two years. To say that footballs are too difficult to handle for many teams seems to only encourage Dean and Woodie to maybe consider such an item. This is supposed to be a challenge, right?

The only problem I see with ping pong and tennis balls is their size. The drivers would have a hard time even seeing them, and resetting the playing field after every match might be cumbersome.

I would like to get away from the balls...maybe something more like foam cubes that you have to stack... Or, if you want some involvement of water, how about carrying water balloons across the field?? (just kidding, really bad idea).

Having a playing field where the teams can play and set-up simultaneously (like the past two years) really seem to help speed up the competition. Now, if we could only get the scoring to be more simplistic so that the ref's don't have to take so long, then we'd be in business! :D

I've been saying it since '98 and I'll say it again: inflatable cubes.

Matt

cubes, hmmmm
 

I do like the idea of changing the object this year. Unfortunately this my third year, so all I have know is the yellow and black balls. What kind of cubes were we thinking here? Because I don't usually see inflatable cubes when I go to the store, keeping in mind I don't look for them. Because from what I have seen, the balls were easily accessible things, unlike floppies. I still don't like the idea of footballs, but I guess as lopsided as the yellow balls were in 2000, they might as well have been footballs. I have also heard cones, I don't think road cones but cone shapes never the less. What do you guys think that the balls/cones/cubes will be put into or what not, I thought the 2000 goals were cool and I liked the mobility of the 2001 goals, what kind of crazy goals do you think they will make us deal with this year?

Re: cubes, hmmmm
 

I'll be honest and say I've never seen them. Doesn't mean they don't exist. ;) I thought cubes because they'd be harder to pick up but still be light like the balls are. And they wouldn't roll. Plus it'd just be cool. :)

Matt

I've said it before when this topic has come up, and I'll say it again. Ropes. Something involving ropes could be easy to set up, while still be something very very new for the FIRST community. Dean said, when asked about the game this year, "This one's so sick, even I'm proud of it." Whatever its going to be, its going to be good.

~Tom~, the guy who can't wait 'til January!:D

Water an Electricity...
 

Everyone seems to be concerned with water being a safety issue with our robots. We only have 12 volt batteries.

In an episode of Junkyard Wars, teams had to build machines to pull divers around under water. One team used an electric motor and a 12 volt car battery to power their machine. The team said that 12 volts really isn't dangerous when submerged under water. They proved this when everything worked and they won. (I think)

I don't understand the details but I do know that in most cases 12 Volts and water mix just fine. This is why you can touch both terminals on a battery and not be shocked.

Can someone more knowledgable on this shed some light on the subject?

I still don't think they will have water, but I think for reasons other than safety.

I'm not an electronics expert by any means, but, well, I think the problem with water and electricity has less to do with electrocution than it does shorting out the robot components.

Again, I've never tried it, but I don't think the robot controller and stuff and water would make good bedfellows.

Re: Water an Electricity...
 

I can't give the most detailed response but here goes anyway. Water is actually much more of a insulator than it is a conductor. The danger of water comes from the fact that it's a liquid and has a large surface area. Given that we use a relatively low voltage equipment (12V), the amperage over a distance of water is very low. To give an idea, I found information that stated there was approximately 2 Megaohms of resistance across a coffee cup of distilled water (only numbers on resistance of water I could find). Given Ohm's law (V=IR rearranged to I=V/R) we'd get .000006 amps or .006 milliamps. That shouldn't be a high enough current to trigger a damaging short.

I would, however, be much more concerned with the control system. Digital electronics are a bit more sensitive to short circuits than regular electronics are. They also aren't designed to handle the type of surges that can be caused by a short.

I hope I've gotten the physics right here. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

Matt

I think the biggest problem with water is not what it would do to the robots--the whole idea is to design one that handles the various challenges, and environmental variables are ones that FIRST has yet to deal with to my knowledge--but what it would do to competition logistics. It would not be easy to build a large playing field comprable to the sizes we've seen in recent years that would hold water, be economical, be quick to assemble and break down, and easy to transport. Plus it is time consuming to fill up a pool of that size, and a whole additional problem arrises when you consider that the water would have to be drained or pumped somewhere when they are finished. Even if FIRST were to come up with some idea to pull it off, I don't see how teams would be able to duplicate it. Besides, if you had a pool with water in it and the robots competed in it, water would get everywhere and then the robots would be wet when you pulled them out and would get the pits wet and the pits usually have a very rough electrical system...its just too much of a hassle.

Rather, I expect a more complex playing field with more moveable parts and things that need climbed. Also, I think time will play an integral role as everyone understands that and likes to watch competetors compete to beat a time limit.

What about a game in which there are alliances of two or three teams that compete to get the most objects, balls or whatever, in moveable goals, in the least amount of time, but where the objects are much harder to get to. Some could be under towers, others on them, and a few easy to reach. It would be beneficial for teams to be able to control and move their goals, so they could get their balls in them, but that would limit their mobility and agility. No team could do everything and there would even be room for defensive robots that get across the field and steal objects or guard goals. Scoring would be easy, as whoever has the most objects in their goals win, but the robots and game would still be very complex.

Just an idea, hope its intelligible as it is very late.

Eric

Water and electronics definitely DO NOT mix. Last year at the nationals we accidentally had a cup of water fall on the operator interface - instant disaster! The same thing would happen to the robot interface in a water-based event.
Do not be deceived by the resistivity figures for ultrapure water (18.2 meg-ohm cm at 25°C). Water which is exposed to the atmosphere rapidly becomes saturated with CO2, which forms carbonic acid, which is conductive. Also, anything the water comes in contact with - leftover soldering flux on the circuit boards, dirt, sweat from handling components - gets dissolved and adds to the conductivity of the water. Just think what kind of water quality you'd have after a few matches with robots running through it - and referees - and balls, pucks, or whatever.
Now, water would be fun challenge, but I think I'll wait until I work for the Navy for that. The chances of any robots still being mobile at the end of a day of water sports is, in my extremely humble opinion, zero.

Maybe......
 

Maybe they should have the fields outdoors and hope it rains like it did last year....Then we could have a water game......plus everyones robot was rain proof testest last year in the pits:D


http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/pi...rrow=4&trows=3

Water CAN be very Dangerous
 

Here is a little section on how small of current it requires for you to injure your body (Mostly in small mili-Amps, remember that your whole body works with electrcal impulses) One of the reasons we can touch low voltage batteries is the semi-high resistance of the skin, I think it takes about 50V to overcome that, but don't forget about cuts and abrasions that provide an easier path for the current. We would need to be even more careful in the pits where the 120V devices start to become involved.

Perception Current
One milliampere (1/1000 of an ampere) will be felt by most individuals as a slight tingling sensation. A defective hand drill or floor polisher might allow this amount of current to flow through a person standing on a dry wooden floor. Not bothered by it, he continues to use the equipment, until he happens to touch a water connection, heating register, metal window sash or other grounded metal object. He has now completed the circuit to ground and a much larger current will flow through his body.

Shock Level
If only five milliamperes (1/43 of the current required to operate a 25 watt lamp) flows through his body, it will result in a violent muscle reaction, throwing him away from the equipment.

Let-Go Current
If the current is much above 10 milliamperes, the person will lose his ability to release his grip on the electrical equipment. While the heart normally can continue to function, fatigue sets in, followed by death if no help is available.

Electrocution
At about 100 milliamperes (less than half that used by a 25 watt lamp) ventricular fibrillation occurs, the muscle fibers lose control and the heart is no longer able to pump blood.

Safety
The levels of current for perception, let-go and ventricular fibrillation vary widely from person to person. The above figures are based on the standard reactions of normal, healthy individuals. The effect of electrical shock on a child, elderly or sick person is much more severe. Even very small amounts of electric current can startle a person, causing him to spill hot liquid, fall from a ladder, or jump back into a greater hazard. For this reason, most manufacturers of electric tools, appliances and motors follow Underwriters Laboratories recommended maximum leakage current of 0.5 milliamps.

Hope this helps anyone unsure that water and electricity are not your two best friends

Water is possible!
 

Considering the battery is only 12 volts, I think it would be possible for a water competition, if they supplied a special water proof box for the control system, with all the wires coming in/out connected to fuses. This way at least a short would hopefully only blow the fuse. Then given the right materials to work with and sealed water pumps, you could seal your robot up pretty tight and use jet ski like water propulsion. It would be difficult and some shorts would be unavoidable, but I think the main problem would be not the robots but the logistics involved in building and maintaning a pool as a field. Can you imagine what would happen if it sprung a leak?

water?
 

I am not going to argue whether or not the battery could hold, but i don't really think that the battery would be the problem. The motors on the other hand don't like water. The logistics behind building a robot that is fully submersable and yet still can be worked on are too great. What happends when your robot breaks and you have to crack the seal to replace a speed controler, i just don't think it would be worth it. and also i am a human player and i don't really feel like rolling up my pants and dragging a 130 pound robot out of a puddle 4 times a day. thats all i have to say about water. I do think that obstacles would be cool though, just not water. what do you guys think should replace the balls this year?

The Real Problem
 

The real problem with a water field is "Where do you set up a practice field?" I'm sure that there are just loads of basketball coaches that would just love to have 6" or so of water on their nice hardwood gym floors.

I don't think it would be possible to set up a water filled practice field at any of the various places we have used for practice, and none of them is a gym.

Re: water?
 

I don't think many people would have a problem with this in florida, especially how late it is this year... its gonna be hot.

Re: Re: water?
 

Tom Remember this year at regionals in Hartford, and the wet carpet under the tents outside?

It's a little different temperature in Hartford than in Fl.


Anyways,

Last years big introduction was a seesaw which accumulated a lot of points by balancing on it. Reminiscent of the Ibot's features to balance.

So this years game might incorporate the physics behind one of Dean's new projects, maybe IT?? Whatever IT is we might get a sneak peak of the fundamental ideas behind what or why IT is, in this year's game. Also if I'm not mistaken the newest addition to the kit in 2001 was a gyro also part of the Ibot. So whatever the newest part(s) in this years kit, if any, might shed some light into the world of Dean's newest invention(s).

There's my two cents.

Just a Thought
 

It occured to me that if we so happen to "guess" the game, and FIRST saw that post? Would they change the game? So perhaps whatever we guess won't show up because if we do guess right, then it won't be the same?

One can also argue, that because it is purely speculation on the board, that there is no reason to change the game should it be guessed.

*shrug*

Just a thought.

FIRST is growing so shouldn't we help it
 

Since FIRST has been around since "89" and alot of people have come and gone on various teams isn't it time that FIRST allowed thier "community" to give a little back?

What I mean is holding a after season competition for teams to make the next years game. If FIRST sent out a call to all teams to come up with the new game then it could also tie into who is eligible that year.

Say team X comes up with a new game idea that would work and has not been done before and then Team Z comes up with a similar idea, Both team's would still not know what the final game would be but since they were the two teams that inputted ideas into the completed game they would be automatically eligable in that years game and also maybe be given a special prize or recognition at the end of Nationals.

I don't know how it would all work in the end, ie: if there is enough time to get input from all teams in time to come up with a new game within a year, or what kind of recognition or prize the team's that inputed ideas would get, but hopefully there will be a chance in the future when FIRST's comunity of teams would have a more active part in game design - not total design but a nudge in the direction that the community would like to see!

Re: Re: Re: water?
 

The gyro chip was around in 2000. Its addition had nothing to do with the game. I believe it was more along the lines that FIRST got them donated.

Matt

Re: Re: Re: Re: water?
 

Ok so if it was around in 2000 then that proves my point even further. Wasn't the Ibot released in 2000??? Also how can you say that the gyro had nothing to do with the game??? In 2000's game probaly not but in 2001 the purpose of the gyro was to help teams balance on the bridge wasn't it? I know of a few teams that actually got theirs to work very well for this purpose. We tried the gyro but it was not a major part of the overall design from the begining so we scraped it after some testing time.

The Gyro was part of the Kit in '99. The Ibot was first shown on Dateline on June 30th of '99. It was obviously in development long before the game for '99 was even conceived.

I would think that the bigger coincidence was that in '99 teams had to climb 6 inches to get on the puck. The Ibot climbs stairs.

I agree with Matt that the inclusion of the Gyro had nothing to do with the Ibot, but it's anyone's guess about the puck.

Doesn't the Ibot use a lot of gyro's in it's design? Also as a side note what was the newest part of this years kit then if the gyro was around for a while? I think there was a proximity sensor in this years kit?? Was that around before?

Also here's my theory on game design and how it ties in with Dean's inventions:

Ibot introduced in 1999.
It's main feature to climb stairs.
It's main technological advantage, a bunch of gyro's.
So we have now,
Game in 1999. Main part of game to climb a 6" puck equivelent to the rise of modern stairs.
Ibot and Game had same purpose

Game in 2000: Main factor to balance on bridge
Ibot and some robot's used the technology of the gyro very sucessfully
Ibot and game had same technology behind it.

Now: IT will be introduced in 2002
My guess is that This years game will incorporate the basic idea of IT into it.
And then in 2003 we will get down to having the same technology as IT in the kit and actually being able to have a "real life" application for that technology.

Just my guess.
I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken!

Back to water...
 

Just the thought of it...
 

Wet Carpets....

Ugghh.... they are the worst thing ever.

I remember last year one of the storage sheds we were using sprung a leak, and during the rainy winter, it got flooded.

Carpeting was soaked.

Just a thought about carpets and water.

Varying the water idea?
 

3 years ago a member of my team who isnt with us anymore came up with an interesting idea for a game. Dont make the game in water, but ontop of the water, kind of like a floating Barge. When too many bots get on one side the raft tips to one end. Its kind of like a floating Barge....i dunno..i thought he was crazy at the time, but now i think it just might work.

What do you guys think?

Re: Just the thought of it...
 

I think just about anyone that went to UTC and was on a team around & over #200 (aka, was in what I like to call "Florida" because of the tents that were used....though now looking back foreshadowed Florida in actuality) can attest to the fact that wet carpet is not fun at all.

Random comment.....don't we talk about water every year?

I have been involved with FIRST for 3 years now...and yes I think "water in the game" is brought up every year...

I had totally discounted the idea of water and robotics - up until now!

If anyone wants to check out a highly interesting application of the Basic Stamp to a water/robotics theme, give this one a try:

http://www.remo.net/spiders/

Now, if that isn't a great idea, I don't know what is. I still don't see how it could be worked into the FIRST competitions, but it sure would put an interesting twist on things now, wouldn't it?

Water?? Look at the possibility!
 

I think we're wasting our time talking about water(even though we have nothing better to talk about until January). But just look at the pro's and con's of water. Water would be a very big problem, especially with the Innovation First control box, all of the wires and everything just wouldn't mix.

I may be the only person who feels this way, but I really liked last year's game.(even though it was my first year) Sure it was a little complicated scoring, but it was a wonderful challenge and it was so much to do, I LOVED it!! But I'm going to trust tha Dean, Woody, and the rest of the FIRST staff will come up with something really spectacular.

From reading the National Team Forum notes, I think we will return to 2vs2. But remember, Gracious Professionalism, so it may not be too competitive. But I guess we'll just have to wait until January 5th. I CAN WAIT!!!!! :D

Re: Water?? Look at the possibility!
 

Hey, I'm with you! My team was a rookie last year, and I really liked last year's game too. I don't see what all the fuss over the game is about, but oh well (trying not to start a flame war). ;)

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...

Re: Water? Fuggedaboutit
 

Stairs Now there's an idea. Have a step in the middle of the field that you have to climb and also have a ramp about 30 degrees angle with a peak height of 2.5 ft either use the stairs or use the ramp to get to the other side.

Ooooohhh... I like that!
 

I'm really liking an idea like that!

- Katie

"Forget about friendship
Hey, let's destroy the enemy
That's one thing I've learned
My enemies are just as close to me...
Don't give up fighting
'Til nothing else stands in your way
Don't give up talking
Until there's nothing left to say
But no matter what you do -
Don't ever compromise what you believe!"
- The Ataris

Stairs w/ hoses
 

Good idea with the stairs. Along with stairs, we could have firehose as a scoring object. We could drag the hose around the playing field, up and over the stairs and place the hose into a fixture. That way, 6 months from now, all or our communities would have fire-fighting robots. In the wake of 9-11... this would be a way that we could make an impact.

Just a thought.

Andy B.

Well, for two years running, we've had relatively static game pieces on the field. 2000 moreso than 2001, of course. But, judging by the wording of the welcome letter who-whats-it, I think this year we'll again be battling over a single object that's a hefty point-scoring device. My crystal ball sees something that either rotates, or involves a large counterweight and a whole lot of scary, forceful oomph!(tm) when it's returning to it's rest state.

Discussion regarding NYC, Firefighters & Robots split to this thread: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...&threadid=1173

Stairs
 

Stairs would be really cool, plus after a little thinking, I came up with the following. Last season, the aspect that defined the competition was bridge balancing. Last season, Dean showcased his iBot at nationals. The main feature of this invention was the ability to balance on two wheels. See a connection? I surfed over to a site that has devoted itself to IT: Dean's newest creation. It seems from the patent drawings (pretty big page) that IT will be able to climb stairs. Some of the drawings feature Star Wars type legs (the large vehicles that had the lasers...its been a while) or a 3 wheel rotating design. I just wanted to put this out there.