Successful ingredients
 

Posted by mike aubry.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Engineer on team #47, Chiefs, from Pontiac Central.

Posted on 8/12/99 8:31 PM MST



Isn't it fun to dream up what next years game could be like!
Don't you think that FIRST could use our collective ideas to assist them in creating a truely fantastic game?
Here's how I would like us to go about doing it.
1st - Identify the required elements of a fun and exciting game!
- fast paced (must encourage motion and movement)
- pleasing to the eye (can see all the action from a specified vantage point)
- colorful (color excites and is easier to market)
- simple, clearly understandable objectives (a calculator is not req'd to keep score)
- teamwork oriented (if alliances are used)
- does not favor or penalize offensive or defensive strategies (one way can't always beat the other)
- does not penalize a good team by aligning with a not so good team (if alliances are used)
- must encourage multiple solutions (isn't balancing the tradeoffs fun?)
- rewards teams that are creative in solving the problem (how to turn the kit into a functioning robot)
2nd - Determine the number of robots that will be playing at one time
- how many teams per alliance (2,3,4...)
- how many alliances (2,3,4...)
3rd - Determine the size and shape of the playing field
- # of sides (3,4,5,6,7,8,...)
- length of sides (14,16,18,20,22,24,28, feet...)
- # of levels (1,2,3...)
4th - What kind, size and shape (characteristics) should the playing pieces be?
- must be large enough to see easily from the stands at Disney
- colorful (red, white, blue, yellow, green) too light and too dark is bad
- mass (weight) sensitive to human player strength limitations
- size cannot be temperature sensitive
- material must be robust enough to endure a battle between robots without being damaged
- must be easy to determine value of score by judges
5th - Determine what and how the playing pieces should be manipulated to produce a score
- where do the start from
- where should they end up
6th - Determine the scoring value
- base score
- multipliers (if used)
7th - Determine where the robots should start from (starting robot position and human positions)
8th - Determine if robots final position should add or subtract or multiply value of score

That's a start - So now, how about some input to the 8 ingrediates? Once these are determined
many of the issues that most of you have written of may now be weighed against the criteria
and those elements that don't fit (like footballs) will leave way to the things that will enhance the
type of successful elements that would lead to a great game.

Game option #1: Basket'Bot !!
 

Posted by Andy Baker.

Engineer on team #45, TechnoKats, from Kokomo High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 8/13/99 7:36 AM MST


In Reply to: Successful ingredients posted by mike aubry on 8/12/99 8:31 PM MST:



Good idea, Mike.

I'll go first. Here's my idea:

Robot Basketball (yeah, I'm from Indiana) !!!!!

(my comments are after the ---> )

: - fast paced (must encourage motion and movement)
--->YEP
: - pleasing to the eye (can see all the action from a specified vantage point)
--->YEP
: - colorful (color excites and is easier to market)
--->We could use the old ABA or the new WNBA ball (and the women of the WNBA to promote the competition!)
: - simple, clearly understandable objectives (a calculator is not req'd to keep score)
--->YEP
: - teamwork oriented (if alliances are used)
--->Two robots per side, and one HP located in a box at midcourt... only for passing
: - does not favor or penalize offensive or defensive strategies (one way can't always beat the other)
--->They'd have to play both
: - does not penalize a good team by aligning with a not so good team (if alliances are used)
--->Hmmm... maybe make it three teams per side
: - must encourage multiple solutions (isn't balancing the tradeoffs fun?)
--->Different plays and different strategies (just like regular hoop teams)
: - rewards teams that are creative in solving the problem (how to turn the kit into a functioning robot)
--->Especially solving a problem (or playing a game) that EVERYONE knows
: 2nd - Determine the number of robots that will be playing at one time
: - how many teams per alliance (2,3,4...)
--->4 or 6, with only 2 or 3 on the court at a time. Subs would be frequent
--->(overheating, breakages, strategy changes, foul outs, etc.)
: - how many alliances (2,3,4...)
--->2
: 3rd - Determine the size and shape of the playing field
--->a regulation basketball court
: - must be large enough to see easily from the stands at Disney
--->This requires a basketball stadium or arena for large contests, but we can do demonstrations
--->anywhere there is a hoop
: - colorful (red, white, blue, yellow, green) too light and too dark is bad
: - mass (weight) sensitive to human player strength limitations
: - size cannot be temperature sensitive
: - material must be robust enough to endure a battle between robots without being damaged
--->No problems there
: - must be easy to determine value of score by judges
--->Score just like a regular game
: 5th - Determine what and how the playing pieces should be manipulated to produce a score
: - where do the start from
: - where should they end up
: 6th - Determine the scoring value
: - base score
: - multipliers (if used)
--->There can be different point values from different locations (dunk = 1, 10 ft out = 3, etc.)
: 7th - Determine where the robots should start from (starting robot position and human positions)
: 8th - Determine if robots final position should add or subtract or multiply value of score

--->The referees can be out on the court with the 'bots, calling charges, fouls, etc.

--->This would almost be comical to watch. We can push the entertainment factor of this. What I'm focusing on is a game that would fit right into a halftime show of an NBA, college, or high school hoops game. We can have some hoops superstar as a spokesman (or woman). This thing would be simple to sell and publicize, and the media would fall in love with it!

---> So, whaddya say?.... let's HOOP IT UP!!!

Andy B.

Length of Match?
 

Posted by Kate.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Engineer on team #190, Gompei, from Mass Academy of Math and Science and Worcester Polytechnic Institute.

Posted on 8/13/99 8:14 AM MST


In Reply to: Game option #1: Basket'Bot !! posted by Andy Baker on 8/13/99 7:36 AM MST:



This idea sounds all nice and good.. But how much time per match are you thinking?? It doesn't sound like all this can happen in the 2min match that we've used every year.. With the subbing that you're talking about and everything.. Another ingredient to add to the list should prolly be the length of each match.. I'm sure most of us are expecting the 2min match we've had forever.. But with ideas like Andy's, it seems like more than 2mins would be required..

-KATE-
Eat, Sleep, Dream FIRST.

Reduce the 'down time' by scoring during the match
 

Posted by Andy Baker.

Engineer on team #45, TechnoKats, from Kokomo High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 8/13/99 9:19 AM MST


In Reply to: Length of Match? posted by Kate on 8/13/99 8:14 AM MST:



I think that 2 minutes is a paradigm that we need to look past.

The real key for time constraint would be the cycle time between matches, not the length of one match.

Let's look at last year:
Match introduction:.........................1/2 minute (ANYONE! please correct these numbers)
Match:............................................ ..2 minutes
Referees figuring the score:.............3 minutes
Removing 'bots and resetting field:...2 minutes
Announcing score and winner:.........1/2 minute
Total:............................................ .....about 8 minutes (is this right???)
Two matches were going on each stage, so that means one match would take place every 4 minutes (this is without snags like dqs, restarts, time outs, etc.). 4 'bots were in each match, so that means 60 'bots could play in one hour. Realizing ther was snags, this number can be reduced by about 20%, getting it down to 50 'bots per hour.

Let's look at Basket'Bot:
Match intro:............................................ ..1/2 minute
Match:............................................ ..........10 minutes (score is known during the match)
Removing 'bots, and announcing score:...1.5 minutes
Total:............................................ ............about 12 minutes
One match would play per stage (court) with 6 teams on each side (3 could be designated as starters and 3 as subs). With two teams (12 'bots) this gives about the same 'bot per minute ratio as last years game.

Generally, what I'm saying is that longer matches could be possible if the game would be easier to score, especially if we kept track of the score as the match progressed. There would be less 'down time' between matches, therefore more action.

I'm not so sure about the sub (bench player issue) and how teams would get to go to the finals (maybe teams with the best win - loss record would go to the finals), etc.... but it sure would be fun to watch!

Hey, I'm brainstorming here... so kick the tires and make my idea better.

Andy B.

Re: Reduce the 'down time' by scoring during the match
 

Posted by Jerry Eckert.

Engineer on team #140 from Tyngsboro, MA High School and New England Prototype/Brooks Automation.

Posted on 8/15/99 12:41 PM MST


In Reply to: Reduce the 'down time' by scoring during the match posted by Andy Baker on 8/13/99 9:19 AM MST:




: Generally, what I'm saying is that longer matches could be possible if the game would be easier to score, especially if we kept track of the score as the match progressed. There would be less 'down time' between matches, therefore more action.

Another means to the same end is to score one match while the next is in progress.

- Jerry

Re: Reduce the 'down time' by scoring during the match
 

Posted by Greg Mills.

Engineer on team #16, Baxter Bomb Squad, from Mountain Home and Baxter Healthcare.

Posted on 8/16/99 7:28 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: Reduce the 'down time' by scoring during the match posted by Jerry Eckert on 8/15/99 12:41 PM MST:



:
: :
FIRST has refrained from progressive scoring because they wanted something that was still set at the end of the match. Something that the referees wouldn't have to keep track of as the game progressed. Not that I agree but that has been the reply to this question over the years.

Re: Reduce the 'down time' by scoring during the match
 

Posted by Jerry Eckert.

Engineer on team #140 from Tyngsboro, MA High School and New England Prototype/Brooks Automation.

Posted on 8/16/99 2:39 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Reduce the 'down time' by scoring during the match posted by Greg Mills on 8/16/99 7:28 AM MST:



: :
: : :
: FIRST has refrained from progressive scoring because they wanted something that was still set at the end of the match. Something that the referees wouldn't have to keep track of as the game progressed. Not that I agree but that has been the reply to this question over the years.

Greg,

I'm not sure if I'm misreading your response or if you misread mine.

My suggestion assumed that the scoring would remain static, with the only change being to start the next match (on the other field) while
the scoring is taking place. The score of match n would be announced at the conclusion of match n+1 to avoid drawing attention from the
match in progress.

- Jerry

Re: Game option #1: Basket'Bot !!
 

Posted by Michael Martus.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Coach on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central H.S. and Delphi Automotives Systems.

Posted on 8/13/99 8:04 PM MST


In Reply to: Game option #1: Basket'Bot !! posted by Andy Baker on 8/13/99 7:36 AM MST:



Sorry Andy, your game is to complicated with fouls, charging and so forth. to many judgemental calls from the refs.

Simplify!

Re:Basket'Bot !!
 

Posted by mike aubry.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Engineer on team #47, Chiefs, from Pontiac Central.

Posted on 8/14/99 5:52 PM MST


In Reply to: Game option #1: Basket'Bot !! posted by Andy Baker on 8/13/99 7:36 AM MST:



So, whaddya say?.... let's HOOP IT UP!!!

: Andy - I think that you have the making of a great game as well! With a few tweaks
I bet it would meet most of the requirements that we would have set. I also think that
change is a good thing. If we continue to keep the game elements the same it will
become too easy to solve the problems associated with them. Such as, how to pick
balls. (I think most of the non-rookies have seen at least 10 ways by now!) So, therefore
I declare that nothing should be sacred - 2 minutes (Bah!), 2 Team alliances (Yeech!),
1 HP per team (Why?), Let's not put too many constraints on the old noggin' here!
I'm with you on this one, but - I also believe that we must (1) 'Keep it simple', (2) Be true
to the criteria you set as what the game elements must be! I can think of a few ideas that
could allow a game like this to work within the FIRST environment. Great work, Keep it up!
Mike

FIRST- cubed!
 

Posted by colleen.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Other on team #?, Actually, I'm a FIRST-aholic, from an undecided team for the year 2000 and I'm taking invitations :-).

Posted on 8/13/99 10:36 PM MST


In Reply to: Successful ingredients posted by mike aubry on 8/12/99 8:31 PM MST:




I don't know what to call it.. don't know all the details.. but have the wheels turning, so i'll give you what i think

: 1st - Identify the required elements of a fun and exciting game!
: - fast paced- 2 minute match
:
- pleasing to the eye - centralized, non-movable-around the field (may spin?) goal.. or simply, as i'm thinking, have a center square in the field maybe 4 feet x 4 feet x 4 feet...with either ramps or steps up the side...
:
- colorful- bright colored playing pieces (personally, i say we revert back to the red, yellow, and black of 1996.. i thought was much more eye-catching under the lights) and instead of just having a line down the middle for the different alliances sides, actually have the whole side of the field that color (no more gray rugs!)
:
- simple, clearly understandable objectives - (i think i made it worse guys) all cubes start on top of the ramp...take your.. 1' x 1' x 1' cubes and stack them.. one on the bottom is worth one point, 2nd is worth 2, 3rd 3..etc. (ones on ground don't count for points unless they have one stacked on top).. stacking on your opponents side of the field doubles the worth of that stack ONLY.. and in stacks made on top of the middle square the bottom one (if others are on top) count as 5 and go up from there (because, had you made your stack on the ground.. that one would be worth five)..basically, cubes count for the amount of feet they are off the ground.. any in the stack that aren't your color, eliminates any and all value of the stack..and of course, if you end the match with your robots on top of the square, that has to count as some sort of multiplier.. i just don't know what yet... if your Human Player is holding their FOOTBALL at the end, it's worth 10 points.. match winners scores may triple again?
:
- teamwork oriented (if alliances are used) - definitely alliances..
:
- does not favor or penalize offensive or defensive strategies - you can build, defend, knockover stacks (like little kids with Lego castles) and if you're on top of the ramp and you get pushed off, just like in '95, those are the breaks- don't get knocked off..

- does not penalize a good team by aligning with a not so good team (if alliances are used) - qualifying matches are and should remain randomly chosen.. who you get is who you get.. enhance your strategy to make up for it..same deal as '99, top scorers pick their partners..

- must encourage multiple solutions (isn't balancing the tradeoffs fun?) - there are many ways too win the game.. (but i have the feeling i haven't really eased the scoring..)

- rewards teams that are creative in solving the problem (how to turn the kit into a functioning robot) - hey, we're using cubes.. how many ways can you pick up, carry and store cubes.. and stack 'em too.. lots of creativity.. in a really robust but mobile style..

2nd - Determine the number of robots that will be playing at one time

: - how many teams per alliance (2,3,4...) 3 per alliance every match..
:
- how many alliances (2,3,4...) 2 alliances at a time
:
3rd - Determine the size and shape of the playing field
: - # of sides (3,4,5,6,7,8,...) 4
: - length of sides (14,16,18,20,22,24,28, feet...) few feet added all around from '99s size..
: - # of levels (1,2,3...) well..2
:
4th - What kind, size and shape (characteristics) should the playing pieces be? 1 x 1 x 1 foot cubes.. alliance colored..

: - mass (weight) sensitive to human player strength limitations.. light, but hard material.. maybe rohacell or something..
:
- size isn't temperature sensitive

: - material must be robust enough to endure a battle between robots without being damaged - that may be the problem.. maybe even made of light wood..?

: - must be easy to determine value of score by judges..well..that's a matter of perspective..
:
5th - Determine what and how the playing pieces should be manipulated to produce a score
: -
where do the start from- on top of the square..
: -
where should they end up - in a stack somewhere..

: 6th - Determine the scoring value
:
- base score - start at zero..
:
- multipliers (if used) - which side of the field the stack is on, where your robot it..
:
7th - Determine where the robots should start from (starting robot position and human positions)

- Robots lined up across from one another on the field.. Drivers are 3 in middle of that side, HP on either side.. then the other HP is on the corner..

-HPs start with a football and two cubes stacked in front of them.. the can use the nerf football for whatever purpose.. to knock the stacks off the top to start, knock over opponents stacks, etc.. robots CAN bring any football(s) back to their HPs.. any in their station at the end count for ten points (still, the no more than three objects in the station at a time rule.. Footballs and cubes count in that 3)
:
8th - Determine if robots final position should add or subtract or multiply value of score - only matters to multiply..

Ok.. cubes will bust our brains for creative robots, the field and game leave themselves open to being defensive, offensive and both all at once and not one way will always win it.. it combines strategy of play, skill, and design into everything while keeping not all that difficult to score and easy to watch... the bigger the stack the better.. robots on top and stacks on opposite sides are better too... but watch out for flying footballs, cause it doesn't just have to be the robots that are offensive.. there's not questioning or measuring.. things are stacked or not.. robots are on the TOP of the square or not.. stacks touching the boundary line don't double..

so i'm getting excited.. what do you guys think???

-colleen

I love cubes!
 

Posted by mike aubry.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Engineer on team #47, Chiefs, from Pontiac Central.

Posted on 8/14/99 5:40 PM MST


In Reply to: FIRST- cubed! posted by colleen on 8/13/99 10:36 PM MST:




: so i'm getting excited.. what do you guys think???

I love your ideas! With a few additional thoughts from others, I'll bet this could become a great game!
Keep up the enthusiasm! By the way, the game at the Chief Delphi Invitational last year used 2 different
sized boxes that were color coordinated and stackable. I really believe that the game pieces are one of the
most important elements in creating an exciting and challenging game!

Now that sounds fun
 

Posted by Tom Vanderslice.

Student on team #275, ORHS/AST/Hitachi, from Academy of Science and Technology and Hitachi.

Posted on 8/15/99 2:32 PM MST


In Reply to: FIRST- cubed! posted by colleen on 8/13/99 10:36 PM MST:



Geez...i only just read it and i'm already thinking abouthow to solve it.. :)

but just some thoughts ont he whole game idea thing...

I'm all for basic scoring but I dunno...i think the games get better ast he scoring gets harder...i like this scoring...but
one thing...the stacks 'block values' oughta double each time...(first block-1, secondblock-2, thirdblock-4, fourth block 8, etc.)
(hey...we're engineers...we all know our powers of two right.. ;)...this would reward people more for taller stacks...
b/c it is hard to stack things that are exactly the same size/shape even more than 4 or 5 high...even when you're doing it
by hand once they are over your head its really hard...so the high blocks oughta be a lot more...

also...i wouldn't say a opponents block nullifies the stack...i'd just say that all blocks are worth what they are where
they are...(if my opponent has 3 blocks...and then i put on on top of that...i get the points for the fourth block int eh stack
they get the points for teh 1st 3....)...b/c my thinking is...if i get close enough to an opponents stack to put a block on it
i'm just gonna knock it over unless its well worth my while to stack on it...

also...maybe turn the field into more of a 'cage'...or at least have nets up the side...so that stuff doesn't fall out of the field
b/c it would take a lot longer to retrieve 3 or 4 blocks that fell over ina tower than it would to grab a floppy and throw it back in..

just some thoughts...but i htink that game sounds pretty cool...maybe a little bigger field too... ;)

Tom

Tom

how about top cube rules!
 

Posted by Joe Johnson.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 8/16/99 6:31 PM MST


In Reply to: Now that sounds fun posted by Tom Vanderslice on 8/15/99 2:32 PM MST:



How about letting teams 'capture' a stack by putting their cube on top?

So, you could be destructo machine or you could be the elegant thief, turning lots of work by your opponent into work for your benefit!

There is also to possibilty of having all cubes have all colors so that there is no 'our pieces' and 'their pieces' All pieces are our pieces provided that I can turn my color to the top!

Cubes RULE!

Joe J.

Re: Bring on the Complicated Scoring.. :)
 

Posted by Tom Vanderslice.

Student on team #275, ORHS/AST/Hitachi, from Academy of Science and Technology and Hitachi.

Posted on 8/16/99 7:48 PM MST


In Reply to: how about top cube rules! posted by Joe Johnson on 8/16/99 6:31 PM MST:



How about having some 'special color' cubes that act as stack doublers...so if its anywhere in the stack all values on that stack our doubled...

Tom

Re: Bring on the Complicated Scoring.. :)
 

Posted by Bethany Dunning.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Coach on team #163, Quantum Mechanics, from International Academy and Quantum Consultants/EATON/ITT Industries.

Posted on 8/17/99 12:51 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Bring on the Complicated Scoring.. :) posted by Tom Vanderslice on 8/16/99 7:48 PM MST:



Sounds like the game from Chief Delphi last November you guys! Tri-colour cubes, colour on top gets the score for the stack.
Bethany

: How about having some 'special color' cubes that act as stack doublers...so if its anywhere in the stack all values on that stack our doubled...

: Tom