[Joel J]

All this water talk..

For all those who like to think about a water based game:

I remember reading somewhere that in 1993 FIRST used water filled balls as a game piece. True?

If the GDC really wanted to, then they would probably be able to find a reasonable way to use water.

Whatever this game is, I hope its BIG. By that I mean: not simple (like 2005 and 2006), not complex (2003 was simple, but stacking boxes was not), not overly flashy (I have yet to see this, 2004 was pretty good, visually), not plain (2001 and 2002), but elegant, and engaging enough for the audience to say, "I don't even care that I can't keep score, this is so exciting." Of course, I think everyone has that wish.

I missed the boat on game suggestion this year.. whatever.

IMO:

2004 was the best year for HPs (they were responsible for a good chunk of the scoring).
2006 was one of the better years for programmers (autonomous mattered, camera alignment with the goal).
The coaches and drivers have been pretty busy in the last few years, so they are probably all set (2005 and 2001 were both better than average for coaches, and arguably 2006, 2000, and, heh, 2003, were the best games for drivers).

So I'm hoping for a game in which the human player does 50% of the direct scoring, the results of autonomous have a weighty impact on the proceedings of the game, the coaches have to be "on their game," to know how to best direct the drivers and human players to score, and the drivers have an interesting time getting objects to score with, or getting the human players time to score. Like, the opponents could have some significant incentive to block another alliance's robot from scoring, or being able to score, but also have a good incentive to try to score themselves. That way, instead of having defensive and offensive periods, you have only one period, and competing teams naturally align themselves for defense or offense. I'm also hoping for a shared end-zone (like 2003), that robots have to fight over. Make it like musical chairs: you have six robots on the field, but only enough space for 4 or 5 robots. With many things mashed together to have all members of a field crew occupied, point distributions become key, eh? Like, the points awarded for completion of each game task would have to be weighted optimally across the board, to prevent teams from becoming overly biased to one strategy over another. For example (this is kinda weak), 1pt scoring was almost a moot point last year. Other than perhaps 322 and a few others, most one point scorers only survived if they were good at defense. In 2004, hanging could win you the match. If a hanging robot was worth 25 points, instead of 50, things may have been a bit more interesting (just speculating).

I dunno. I think this post got so off-topic, that it probably should be moved to another thread. eh..