Re: 2012 Game?
 

Something that would be interesting is:

-No Human Player

-Human Player is a robocoach once again (2008), however, they control the minibot. The minibot and robot perform seperate and distinct tasks, until the endgame, where they have to meet, and performs some sort of transfer.

idk, would be interesting, and would support the stated goals of the minibot returning, and making it more interesting throughout the entire match (unstated goal).

Re: 2012 Game?
 

That would be quite interesting. What would the control system be for that? Would it be something as simple as a VEX Signal Splitter and RC controller or something on par with the wireless controls of the FRC bots? Either way, that would make for quite interesting competition.

PS That seems like Inception Robotics. Mini-robotics competition within a match of a FRC competition... =D

Re: 2012 Game?
 

the first year that there ISN'T a competition for human player.

Re: 2012 Game?
 

Sounds like OCCRA, we have a separate field for tiny little VEX robots. In retrospect this is probably a good thing, considering the "big bots" weigh 10x more and go 10x faster :rolleyes:

Re: 2012 Game?
 

What if there was a FTC sized field in the middle of the FRC field and the minibots had to do some task like inside the field?

Re: 2012 Game?
 

Or two smaller fields, one at each end of the FRC field? Make it easier for the "mini-bot driver" to see whats going on and it would leave the middle of the FRC field open for the big bots.

Re: 2012 Game?
 

Or put your minibot field on the other side of the main field ... and let the teams figure out how to see their minibots.

I would forsee some inventive uses for a robots onboard camera ;)

Re: 2012 Game?
 

In all seriousness, I think the minibots should be relegated to simple tasks. Logomotion was a bad enough spectator game as it was, more complication with minibots would just make it worse. Breakaway was a great spectator game, and it (obviously) did not include minibots. It was a great spectator game not necessarily because of the lack of minibots, but for the lack of complication. It was, quite simply, soccer with robots! A person could walk into a regional and immediately understand what was happening. Logomotion, not so much.

Re: 2012 Game?
 

I think that's the direction the GDC kind of wants to go from the hints they dropped earlier in the year right after Champs. Instead of finishing the current year game less than weeks before kickoff, they may or may not have games planned out years ahead, and something tells me part of this is due simplifying the game. I don't remember any exact quotes, but I remember reading something to that effect.

If you make the concept simple so that spectators (and by extension, new team members) can understand the game with one phrase (I distinctly remember saying "robot soccer" during the 2010 build season over 9000 times), but make the intricacies of the actual gameplay interesting, I believe that's the secret to a successful FRC game.

Re: 2012 Game?
 

How would one get to bills blog?

Re: 2012 Game?
 

This is Bill's Blog. It is a great source of information from the Director of FRC, Bill Miller. He usually updates it at least once a week with things that are happening with FRC, especially game design (like unoffical game hints).

Someone will also usually post a thread on chiefdelphi with the notation [BB] at the beginning for Bill's blog, about important blog entries such as this , so you can often find the information here if you do not remember the blog's url or just find it easier to check chiefdelphi.

~Hannah

Re: 2012 Game?
 

Has anyone else looked into Mayan games? Look at Pok-a-tok.

It was a combination of Soccer, Basketball, Racquetball, and Volleyball. It was played with a six inch rubber ball and a hoop which was placed vertically, could barely fit the ball in it and was placed twenty to thirty feet above the ground. The object was not only to get the ball in the hoop but to also keep the ball in motion. They did this with any part of their body except their hands.

Remember they have already finish this years game. and are already working on 2013. considering that they always base the game off of somthing signifigant for the corresponding year, isnt 2012 a theoetical end of world senario a big enough deal to be the theme? just sayin, give it some thought.

Pam And Trevor from Apple Pi Robotics 2067

Re: 2012 Game?
 

Where did you get this information? It only holds true for 2009, 2010, and 2011. It's certainly a recent trend, but I wouldn't say always. That's the same reasoning that leads us into the circle-triangle-square gamepiece cycle that really doesn't exist.

Re: 2012 Game?
 

My understanding of this was that the GDC was hoping to finish the games a year early so that they had a year to work out the kinks of the game. In a perfect world, this would lead to more available game pieces (gives enough time to create an appropriate supply chain), a better rule book (you really shouldn't need to send an update out a week after kick-off), and a more spectator friendly game.

Re: 2012 Game?
 

Just like the balls every other year cycle?

You can add 2008 to that year list(nascar), but I think that the idea it will relate to an event for that year connects to being able to explain it to non-FIRSTers(based on earlier post). A game based on soccer or traversing the moon is far simpler to explain to people then for example Rack-n-Roll where the whole ramp, moving rack, spoilers, and vertically and horizontally aligned game pieces made the game more difficult to explain to an outsider what they were seeing.