[meaubry]

I believe that the debates on this thread are all very stimulating - some time during the "off season" someone starts a thread about "what would be a good game? water no water? what kind of objects? It's fun guessing, but the Chiefs have created a game every year for the last 6 years. I can tell you that we have tried frisbees, inflatable toroids (kiddie swimming tubes) boxes of varying sizes, balls of varying sizes and this year big Orange Juice Bottles! We actually called the game involving stacking color coded boxes "Whaz UP?" before Budwieser did those commercials.
I get very involved every year in the game design - its a lot harder than people realize. A few years ago, on this forum we discussed the elements needed for a fun, exciting, scalable, marketable game - including making it audience friendly (aka, scoring made easy - a stranger could walk up and see who had what score and pretty much figure out the game.
Over the years, what we have found out is this -
Water on a gymnasium floor is not a good idea, no matter how well you think you can insulate or isolate it from being damaged, so why go there? No administrator would allow it.
Game pieces that are colorful and big are better for viewing from a distance.
The shape of the object is an issue if you are trying to locate them at the start of a match - balls are not necessarily perfectly round. Objects with a flat side to them make that part easier. I like odd shaped objects, but balls are easy to get, colorful, and robust.
Objects must be robust, because the robots and the interaction with them is more rough than delicate (large motor skills like squeezing a ball are easier developed than small motor skills like controlled pick and place manipulation) The material they are made of is also important.
The other issue related to game objects is their weight. For practical reasons things that weigh alot (more than 5-7 lbs) can be a problem.
The game itself must be developed with all strategies in mind. Offensive only or Defensive dominated games can be percieved as less exciting at times (depends on who's robot it is).
For sure - the game must be easy enough for every team to be able to build a competitive robot - yet hard enough to challenge everyone.
The functions that are required of the robots (and sometimes the people) must be achievable, many different ways. Diverse solutions is the key here - no one wants to see 500 robots that all look and act alike.
So, here is where the game is really developed - driving on a flat floor, a ramp, climbing a pole, climbing a rope, balancing, depositing the scoring objects on high places, moving places, into places, over things, under things. The choices are limitless ...... thats why we will all wait and in about 8 weeks we will all find out together. I can also assure you that developing a game that is well recieved is very rewarding to those that create it. And, until its inveiled and played - you really don't know if it works the way its intended. Unfortunately, there isn't a way to please everyone.
Over the past 7 years, regardless of the format chosen - the games have been interesting and challenging - nice job, Dean, Woody, and crew from FIRST.