Re: 2012 Game?
 

As a reply to everybody saying they want a "cooperative" game, I just don't see what your seeing. Competition is what drives us, and any form play that assists your opponents doesn't really seem like it's competitive. I understand the whole "Try to work together to achieve maximum points" thing, but it's not in any way in the spirit of competition. While cooperation is vital, I don't think FRC stands for FIRST Robotics Cooperation. In my point of view, on the field, cooperation should only be done with alliance members.

Re: 2012 Game?
 

Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems are competitors.

Unless you're talking about the F-35, that is.

Quite often, cooperation between opposing competitors can work to the good of all of them. FLL does this with the shared objective--sometimes, both teams need to do it and both get points; other times, only one can do it and get points.

The really fun trick is to make it so that if you work together it's easier to do something that benefits both a lot, but if you work separately, one or both benefit, but to a much lesser extent.

Re: 2012 Game?
 

What we should try is for CD members to actually come up with our own FRC game together like the GDC would. Discuss ideas, talk about possibilities and make it a team effort. Pick our favorites and combine ideas into our own ideal FRC game. That would be cool if it would work out.

Re: 2012 Game?
 

THis is a bad example. Big defense contractors only work together becuase of politics. Politicians want to spread the jobs across multiple states soe defense contractors put proposals together to show that the jobs are in every district. They would rather have the whole pie, and activly position themselves to take the pie from others as soon as they falter.

Re: 2012 Game?
 

What offseason? The 2012 preseason started at the social on the evening of the 30th :P

Re: 2012 Game?
 

I get that its nice and all that we "discover" that working together makes things easier than working separately, but I don't think the game should be about making this social point.
The competition should be just that, a competition, albeit a respectful and graciously professional competition, but I don't understand the need to make the competition more of a "work together to complete goals" thing. It would be ridiculous and met with distaste if we were to have a game that denied us the opportunity for this direct competition.

Re: 2012 Game?
 

How about a game like king of the hill where robots try to stay on the center of a hill and the farther out from the center the less points you get. Also above the field is a horizontal bar and the closer the bottom of the robot is to the bar the more bonus points. Teams can also give robots a boost onto the hill or the bar as well as block teams trying to get to these two areas. The hill moves and the side that has the most hill in it gets 3/4 of the points from the hill so if a red robot has control of the center of the hill(which is worth the most) and the hill is on the blue side then blue gets 3/4 of the entire sum of points from the hill.

Re: 2012 Game?
 

And FRC DOESN'T have politics?

Maybe, just maybe, those three companies put in a joint bid on the project. Maybe, just maybe, they weren't forced to by politics--Boeing put in a bid for the same project and AFAIK didn't have a major second player.

As far as FRC and politics, don't get me started--they've said and done a few rather impolitic things with regards to various areas, trying to play politics.

@Xavier--Right. That's why 4v0 was so unpopular. But if that sort of element is incorporated into the game as an option, but not required to compete by any means, well, then, that could make life really, really interesting--will the alliances play 6v0 or 3v3?

Re: 2012 Game?
 

How about an end game that deals with prisoners dilemma. For anyone who doesn't know what this is the situation goes like this.
Two prisoners are in separate cells before they go to court and are unable to talk.
If
-Both plead guilty, both get 1 years in jail
-Both plead innocent, both will get 5 years
-One pleads guilty and the other innocent, the one that pleaded guilty gets 10 years. The one that pleads innocent gets 0 years.
Both pleading guilty yields the best mutual result, but pleading innocent gives you a chance to get no jail time.
This would make an interesting end game if instead of pleading, the robots had to complete a task durring the end game that the opposing alliance could not see if it were done. Gracious professionalism says both do the task and split the points. Strategy might want to take the risk.

Re: 2012 Game?
 

How about a game where the two alliances have to interact in order to score points. Tennis or ping pong maybe. They both use a ball and I think they are both still olympic sports.

Re: 2012 Game?
 

See now I thought bout that for this year's minibot race. You would say that you could deploy it at anytime you wanted but scoring would be in reverse order: 1st to score got 5 then 10 then 15 then 20; but there would be no scoring after the match was over. So, yes you could get guaranteed points but you would be giving your opponent the chance for more.

Re: 2012 Game?
 

i had an idea that i think would be pretty sweet. what if during autonomous, teams scored very light weight inflatable or foam balls on a grid. then the goal of teleopp is to duplicate as closely as possible the same pattern, using 18 lbs bowling balls. expand auton to 30 or 45 seconds, and the fact that the bowling balls weigh a lot. i immagine a six sided grid in the middle of the field. auton balls are scored into polycarb tubes. and roll down within the tube. teleop balls are scored, but dont roll down as far. points go as follows.

auton balls are worth 1 on low, 2 on mid, and 3 on high rows in the grid.

teleopp balls are worth 1 on low, 2 on mid, and 3 on top

a pair, of teleop and auton balls, is worth 2 on botom, 4 in midle, and 6 on top.

in the last 15 seconds. teams have the chance to deploy a pre loaded, 1 per team super ball.

a super ball is worth 6 points anywhere

2 superballs on top of each other (requiring 2 robots to score them) is worth 18 points.


what do you guys think?

Re: 2012 Game?
 

Sounds like Lunacy with stationary goals. ;)

Re: 2012 Game?
 

Bill's Blog said that the GDC actually considered this, and (I think?) discussed it with some teams, but eventually rejected it.

Re: 2012 Game?
 

fair point.