View Single Post
  #18   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 20-09-2004, 16:03
Jaine Perotti Jaine Perotti is offline
...misses her old team.
AKA: BurningQuestion
FRC #0716 (The Who'sCTEKS)
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: May 2004
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Melbourne, FL
Posts: 979
Jaine Perotti has a reputation beyond reputeJaine Perotti has a reputation beyond reputeJaine Perotti has a reputation beyond reputeJaine Perotti has a reputation beyond reputeJaine Perotti has a reputation beyond reputeJaine Perotti has a reputation beyond reputeJaine Perotti has a reputation beyond reputeJaine Perotti has a reputation beyond reputeJaine Perotti has a reputation beyond reputeJaine Perotti has a reputation beyond reputeJaine Perotti has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Jaine Perotti Send a message via MSN to Jaine Perotti Send a message via Yahoo to Jaine Perotti
Re: Question of the Week!!! (9/19/04)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Baker
Water is not an element. It is a molecular combination of 2 elements: 1 part Hydrogen, 2 parts Oxygen.

Sheesh!


AB
Water is actually 2 parts hydrogen, 1 part oxygen.
Sheesh!

(sorry, i'm such a dork! )

back to the topic at hand...
One important element of a game is the ability to explain it to someone (non FIRST or rookie) in under 10 seconds. This makes the game much more spectator friendly, and makes going to a competition a lot more fun for someone outside of the FIRST realm. This was one of the great advantages of the 2003 game. It is very easy to explain.

"The robots are trying to get the boxes into their scoring zones. If they can stack the boxes, it multiplies their score by the amount of boxes in their stack. If they get to the top of the ramp at the end of the match, they get extra points."

Thats pretty short isn't it. Three sentences. However, this years game was a lot more complex. It takes me a full 30 seconds to explain it to someone. But this year's game had it's advantages also. It allowed for multiple strategies and robots to win the game; hangers, 2x grabbers, and small ball herders. Each scoring element was important to win. I would like a game that offers different ways to score points.

An interesting element that could be added into this year's game, that I dont think has been done before, would be to add "extreme" conditions on the playing field. Something that would set up "design paradoxes", so to speak. For example, if a game included ways to score points deep underwater, and ways to score points on rocky terrain, and it would be impossible to win the game if you couldn't do both...you would create a very interesting design challenge. It would be hard to design a robot that could swim in deep water AND climb over big rocks. Just a thought....

One other element that I personally believe is important is the autonomous mode. I liked how in 2003, autonomous mode nearly always determined the outcome of the match. Some people didn't like this because it seemed to undermine the importance of the remote control period, but I think it made it more intense; the drivers had to frantically try to move boxes onto their side if autonomous mode didn't go their way. I also think autonomous mode applies in the real world; many robotic technologies today rely on robots that are fully autonomous. The game should include elements that give teams challenges that they may find in the real world, such as autonomous mode. Make the game challenging enough to give a good educational experience to FIRSTers.

Sorry I didn't exactly stick to one element!!
__________________
Florida Institute of Technology
Ocean Engineering, '12
Reply With Quote