A Quasi-Veteran's opinion:
1. Too much human player interaction and too many 'almost pre assembled' pieces in the kit: Well, there are 225 rookie teams. At the Science Center (site of the Canadian Regional Kick-Off) nearly half of the 78 teams identified themselves as rookies. If FIRST oriantates there game towards vets, then the game will be very interesting but too difficult for rookies and membership will not grow (as rapidly as it has, which means less money to bargain for in the end, but thats a totly different thread).
2. I have found it very unfortunatey that teams in previous years didn't 'raise the bar' [of there engineering challange] to build a more complex, more addaptive robot. Many, even in Houston, where just stack knockers and monsters [Chief Delphi thats you!] that folded out and took up space, other then that acted as deadweights.
As a result of the games complexity [and we want to perform 7 functions VERY well] and the size and wieght restrictions, we are forced to employ higher design and craftsmanship standards. We will be experimenting with everything, mostly because 4 of our functions call for designs which I've NEVER seen incorperated into previous bots.
Thumbs up to that blob, lots of learning head!
3. I don't like the idea of not being about to de-score. The platform and bar will act as a physical and phycological wall during game play. Throwing extra balls in or placing a 2x muliplier will be totally dependent on the other side's performance. Last year's open concept [with a slight bottle neck, the ramp] would otherwise allow a team to directly influance the other team's score during game play. This year I think that many teams will sit and wait.
4. I'm worried about a game like that of 2002's. Many teams will simply try to hurd as many balls as possible and let thier human player/basketball scholarship recipiant rack up points. However, FIRST has allowed for very quick and easy drivetrain assembly, hoping perhaps to see more teams focus on building a 2x multipier manipulator or bar grabber. However, experiance has shown that many teams nevertheless will opt for the simpler solution.
My predictions:
1. Many light and quick bulldozers accompanied by some school basketball stars.
2. Many teams will have enough technical skill to persue a secondary function (2x manipulator or bar grabber). Few will go for the bar grabber because of latching complexity, weight and stair-climbing difficulty. This will result in KOTH (more like KOT Platform) situation where ball manip. robots will be blocking bar grabbers [bar grabbers -> consider being able to latch to the bar while not on the platfrom
].
3. Ball grabbing teams will have fewer balls to throw into there bins then grabber since grabbers will not need to spend lots of time manipulating, securing and placing thier target; thiers is stationary.
4. Successful teams will make extensive use of sensors and other 'new' parts in the kit [cough cough].
5. Teams will be more preoccupied with winning, then keeping thier opponents score close. Whether they will go for the 2x mult. or bar will depend upon what they feel thier ball scoring consistancy will be.
6. Bar grabbers will not focus on autonomus mode as much as ball grabbers. They will get 50 points regardless of how long they wait to get thier balls.
7. Expect some VERY unique drivesystems from veteran teams.
8. Most of the processor's power will be used towards manipulating sensor data and formulation a respondse, rather then the [hmm, one?] autonomous mode.
Food for thought: Could this game be a learning springboard for next year's uber insanity?
Thats my $0.02 PLN. [expect some ingenuity and a hot presentation
at the Canadian Regional]