[jerry w]

Things I did NOT like in 2004.
Static tasks

Scoring awarded Teams too many points for a static task. A team could hang from the bar much too soon in the game. The 50 points gotten were easy points, since no other tasks had to be done. If the point value of a hanging robot were 40 instead of 50 points, this would encourage more active task participation.

Autonomous

Autonomous mode could not tackle most of the tasks in the game. Of course, 2004 saw us with a new controller. The newness made autonomous mode extra difficultly. Nevertheless, there ought to be a choice of simple tasks during the autonomous phase. The ball triggering was simple enough, but more tasks would be better.

Things that I DID like in 2004
Task quantity

The multitude of tasks during a match meant that teams had to decide which task to do and when to do it.

Navigation

Navigation beacons were a great idea. If teams have time this summer, they can learn how to use the beacons. This would be great during autonomous mode next year.

Choices

Two pathways were available for a robot to use for reaching the other side of the field. This provided flexibility.

Scoring

The simplified scoring, along with the use of the opponents’ points, was much easier to understand than in the past.

Suggestions for another game in 2005
Game objects

Next year should use the boxes instead of balls. A change between round and non-round requires that teams change their thinking about the objects, and not just modify the manipulator from last year.

Object location

Have the human player place an object on the field that an opponent robot must locate and move. The scoring should award Points for moving the object into a goal area.

Human player

Make the human player active at the start of the game as was done in 2003. This provides visual proof to the audience that the humans and robots do interact.

Vertical control

Include a tall task (like a hanging bar, or stacking), so that teams learn how to maintain balance, or learn how to prevent toppling.

Carriers

Provide a wheeled object on the field that can support a robot. Allow a partner robot to move the object while it is supporting an alliance robot.

Dynamic field

Provide a hinged pathway to a platform. The rules should allow the robot to move the pathway (ramp) to an open or closed position. The platform can trap a robot, unless the partner moves the pathway into a proper position.

Goal post

Use a goal-post in the game. A robot gets points by touching each goal post in sequence. Award Extra points for moving an object from the first to the second goal post.

Obstacles

In 2004, teams did climb an obstacle, though it was not required. Perhaps we should have an obstacle to climb which results in points.

Cooperation

Require a partner to pass an object to the alliance robot to get points. Each team should have their robot supported in different marked field areas to count toward points during the pass.

Active tasks

Provide at least two constructive tasks that result in points. For example, stacking boxes, or positioning an object into a field zone would earn points.

Zones

Devise an inner court and outer court on the field. Make the transfer to the inner court a task that requires cooperation with the partner. The partner must activate a lever, or slide a wheeled object to cause the alliance partner to reach the inner court. The points for doing tasks in the inner court should be double the points for those on the outer court.

Autonomous

Provide a large selection of tasks to do in autonomous mode, with points for each task. Teams must then tailor robot design to complete one or more of these tasks.

i have more ideas, but i also have some mercy.
Jerry W