Re: 2012 Game?
 

no way, resets mix things up and drive innovation. I would really love multi level with climbing. Or a hockey rink with the same rules as power wheel chair hockey.

Re: 2012 Game?
 

If regalith makes a come back I may cry! think if you have the minibots running at the same time as the robots it would create an interesting problem. I honestly think the next thing they would do might be with push sensors or something that the nxt can do to keep it intertwine because they seemed to like that.

Re: 2012 Game?
 

In 2009 FIRST made an attempt to level the playing field by using an ice-like surface (CoF of .06/.07) on the playing field.

Dominant teams were still dominant, and those who struggled in the past - still struggled.

That being said, let's bring back the regolith. ;)

Re: 2012 Game?
 

I want a divided field. It would simultaneously end the "drivetrain wars" and present an interesting challenge for teams.

Re: 2012 Game?
 

As in Red alliance stays on one side of the field for the entire match and blue alliance on the other?

Re: 2012 Game?
 

That would be interesting play (VEX Clean Sweep used this concept). But more interesting, put the robots on the other end of the field (I.E. in front of the opposing alliance station).

Re: 2012 Game?
 

God please no. It's hard enough to drive, and coach drivers, when you can SEE.

Re: 2012 Game?
 

You've got a point. I was thinking more from a "what-if" perspective. It would be odd, and extremely annoying.

Another segmented field idea I came up with; a 4 team alliance that works together to score maximum points?

Each team can only go in a certain section of the field and have to ferry game pieces across the field to be scored. In that vein, scoring would be based off points scored in the game time. If an alliance scores every single game piece, they get 1 additional point for every second left on the clock? Max score (and by extension, fastest time) is the objective.

Re: 2012 Game?
 

Were you around in 2001? ::rtm:: :)

Re: 2012 Game?
 

This would be a fantastic game for the rookie team I am getting started for next year. Our mentors come from AREVA NP and B&W, two nuclear contractors/operators, almost all of the engineering mentors currently work on robots that do service or inspection of nuclear reactors (including robots currently at Fukishima). The more realistic that the GDC made it the better.

Re: 2012 Game?
 

I, in fact, was not (points at my rookie year info box). In any respect, I think a segmented field, if used correctly could make an interesting game.

Re: 2012 Game?
 

I'm thinking that the middle open area is for alliances to pass game pieces between each other in a way that isn't over the wall. Your robot can't pass across the white line on the opposite side or else penalty.

I'm not sure what the game would be, but it would have lots of Coopertition points involved by having seperate alliances attempt to not only complete their own specific tasks but if both alliances can complete a bigger task together while on opposite sides of the field, both alliances gain Coopertition points as well as some boost to their seed ranking.

I'm going to have to raise the wall near the platforms.

Re: 2012 Game?
 

4v0, trying to score as many points as possible. The sooner you stopped the clock, the higher your multiplier. (And even today, when talking about the E-stop, the Manual makes it clear that the E-stop won't affect match timing--they were used to stop the clock that year, and that year only.)

It's also up there on the top 5 "Please Don't EVER Do This Again!" list--it's not exactly a popular game. Right alongside 2003's eliminations scoring (points-based; win one match by enough and you win the round, effectively) and 2010's ranking system. Now, having both alliances need to (try to) work together to do something is not on that list.

Re: 2012 Game?
 

What if the goal was to take them from the lower end (like maybe a 5-12 inch rise over the length of the field) and put them in the square. Robot drive systems cannot go over the middle line, but manipulators can (and, of course, associated penalties).

The human player on the "high" end of the field (oh my, so many jokes) can bring the game pieces in, and return them ala bowling ball return (the human player on the "low" end would have to return them over the wall).

P.S. Thanks for the history lesson. Man, thinking about it that sounds like an abysmal game.

Re: 2012 Game?
 

Taking a page from Quad Quandry, I whipped this up. Notice that the Red alliance goal is in the Blue Alliance Zone, and vice versa. Both allainces may either work together to score the most points possible, or pull the goals away to make it harder for the opposing alliance to score.

Maybe use Dodgeballs, like in 2004. I'm guessing 36 of them. Each ball in the Alliance Zone is worth 1 point, and 3 points for each ball in the Alliance Goal.

In the last 20 seconds of the match, alliances may work together to lift the two goals at least 20" off the floor and resting on the top of a robot. If the goals tip over and de-score any balls, those will have to count for being in the Zone rather than the goal. If both alliances successfully raise both goals 20" high by the end of the match, each alliance obtains 2 Coopertition points. A Bonus 1 coopertition point is eached by each individual team that is holding up the goals.

Or something like that....

(ps, the red boxes in the picture below are robots)