Go to Post Ohh the [strike]humanity[/strike] robotity! - artdutra04 [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > FIRST > General Forum
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 29-04-2004, 12:36
Woodie Flowers Award
Ken Patton Ken Patton is offline
purple
FRC #0051 (Wings of Fire)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Rookie Year: 1997
Location: Pontiac, MI
Posts: 338
Ken Patton has a reputation beyond reputeKen Patton has a reputation beyond reputeKen Patton has a reputation beyond reputeKen Patton has a reputation beyond reputeKen Patton has a reputation beyond reputeKen Patton has a reputation beyond reputeKen Patton has a reputation beyond reputeKen Patton has a reputation beyond reputeKen Patton has a reputation beyond reputeKen Patton has a reputation beyond reputeKen Patton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: On Game Design

Matt-

I agree with some of your observations, but I don't think the solution is to give the game an easy element. I think thats what they tried in 2003, and the free market gave us a whole bunch of talented "boxes-on-wheels" and few stackers. In my opinion, when you have experienced teams building not much more than a drivetrain, its gonna be a boring slugfest.

Everyone loves the 2000 game. It was (and still is) my favorite. It did not have an easy element (yes I know I am ignoring simply sitting on the ramp, but there were few boxes on wheels tha did just that). 2004-style herding is easier than 2000-style hanging or 2000-style ball-bin-scoring.

I though this years game came close to 2000 in terms of the entertainment factor. Sure, there were a lot of teams who bit off more than they could chew (we did, the 2X ball grabber is on the "wall of shame" in our shop), but I would say that that penalized the experienced teams (who wanted to do it all) more than the less-experienced teams (who wanted to be great at one or two things).

Drive systems are going to evolve regardless of the game, in my opinion. If a team focuses too much on a specific drive system, it might hurt them when they see in January that the new game makes parts of their idea obselete (for example how important was it this year to have a multi-speed drive as compared to a platform climber?)

Ken
Reply With Quote
  #2   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 29-04-2004, 12:50
Unsung FIRST Hero
Matt Leese Matt Leese is offline
Been-In-FIRST-Too-Long
FRC #1438 (The Aztechs)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: May 2001
Rookie Year: 1998
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 937
Matt Leese has a reputation beyond reputeMatt Leese has a reputation beyond reputeMatt Leese has a reputation beyond reputeMatt Leese has a reputation beyond reputeMatt Leese has a reputation beyond reputeMatt Leese has a reputation beyond reputeMatt Leese has a reputation beyond reputeMatt Leese has a reputation beyond reputeMatt Leese has a reputation beyond reputeMatt Leese has a reputation beyond reputeMatt Leese has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Matt Leese
Re: On Game Design

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Patton
Matt-

I agree with some of your observations, but I don't think the solution is to give the game an easy element. I think thats what they tried in 2003, and the free market gave us a whole bunch of talented "boxes-on-wheels" and few stackers. In my opinion, when you have experienced teams building not much more than a drivetrain, its gonna be a boring slugfest.

Everyone loves the 2000 game. It was (and still is) my favorite. It did not have an easy element (yes I know I am ignoring simply sitting on the ramp, but there were few boxes on wheels tha did just that). 2004-style herding is easier than 2000-style hanging or 2000-style ball-bin-scoring.

I though this years game came close to 2000 in terms of the entertainment factor. Sure, there were a lot of teams who bit off more than they could chew (we did, the 2X ball grabber is on the "wall of shame" in our shop), but I would say that that penalized the experienced teams (who wanted to do it all) more than the less-experienced teams (who wanted to be great at one or two things).

Drive systems are going to evolve regardless of the game, in my opinion. If a team focuses too much on a specific drive system, it might hurt them when they see in January that the new game makes parts of their idea obselete (for example how important was it this year to have a multi-speed drive as compared to a platform climber?)

Ken
I don't think there should be an "easy" element of the game. Perhaps my original post wasn't clear enough in that regard. I think that there shouldn't be one easy element and one hard element. I think there should be two medium difficulty elements. I don't like the easy and hard element mix because it tends to differentiate teams into those who can compete and those who cannot. Or, worse, you end up in a position like 2003 where you pick one element to design against (stacking) and find out that you can't actually score points that way (reliably) and you're basically done competiting for the year at that point.

I agree that drive systems will advance but there's no reason to make it easier. And there's also no reason to allow someone to easily build a very powerful drive train with additional robot elements. Allow a team to choice either a powerful drive train or additional manipulators.

I single out drive systems because there seems to be a lot of emphasis on them, particularly in the off-season. I also think that it's harder to get students involved when the robots get more complex (although it's not impossible but the more complex the robot, generally the harder it is to get students involved).

Matt
Reply With Quote
  #3   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 29-04-2004, 13:02
MikeDubreuil's Avatar
MikeDubreuil MikeDubreuil is offline
Carpe diem
FRC #0125 (Nu-Trons)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 967
MikeDubreuil has a reputation beyond reputeMikeDubreuil has a reputation beyond reputeMikeDubreuil has a reputation beyond reputeMikeDubreuil has a reputation beyond reputeMikeDubreuil has a reputation beyond reputeMikeDubreuil has a reputation beyond reputeMikeDubreuil has a reputation beyond reputeMikeDubreuil has a reputation beyond reputeMikeDubreuil has a reputation beyond reputeMikeDubreuil has a reputation beyond reputeMikeDubreuil has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to MikeDubreuil
Re: On Game Design

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Leese
I single out drive systems because there seems to be a lot of emphasis on them, particularly in the off-season. I also think that it's harder to get students involved when the robots get more complex (although it's not impossible but the more complex the robot, generally the harder it is to get students involved).
This is a little OT, but I feel relevent to the quote...

I believe you're seeing veterans improve their drive trains in the offseason because it's the one thing you can standardize. Most teams run fine with the same drive train every year. By standardizing on mechnisms it gives teams more time to concentrate on the new changes in the game.
You would think that this put veteran teams to a distinct advantage, and in some ways it does. However, FIRST responded pretty well to this by providing a basic drivetrain in the kit of parts.

Right now my team is in the process of standardizing a drivetrain. For three reasons: we found one we like, and we just don't have the people power to re-engineer every mechanism each season. The final reason is because FIRST has raised the bar and requires synergy between teams (mostly drivetrain and control systems) that just can't happen in 6 weeks. Our autonomous was poor the last two years because we haven't put offseason time into it. By standardzining on a drivetrain and complimenting it with a control system we will have a more competitve autonomous mode.
__________________
"FIRST is like bling bling for the brain." - Woodie Flowers
Reply With Quote
  #4   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 29-04-2004, 14:18
Marc P. Marc P. is offline
I fix stuff.
AKA: βetamarc
no team
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: Watertown, CT
Posts: 997
Marc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Marc P.
Re: On Game Design

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil
By standardizing on mechnisms it gives teams more time to concentrate on the new changes in the game.
You would think that this put veteran teams to a distinct advantage, and in some ways it does.
I think this is exactly one of the points Matt is making- it does put veteran teams at an advantage, even over other veteran teams that do not standardize. The advantage is exactly as you say- you spend much less time creating what is arguably the most important aspect of your robot. In most cases I like to think virtually all the design that goes into a robot should be done within the 6 week limit, not the 8 months between competition and the next build season. Otherwise, you may as well fabricate your base and drive train, and simply plug in your motors and electronics as soon as you get the kit. Slap on a goal/bar/ball grabber and you have 5 weeks of practice time.

FIRST relies on our gracious professionalism to ensure we don't do that sort of thing. The 6 week limit is there for a reason, and I feel to work on any part of a robot outside of competition or that period defeats the purpose of having a set time limit. I think that's why in last year's game we didn't see too much stacking- it was a new thing no one has seen before, so no pre-proven or optimized mechanisms were around. Adds to the challenge aspect of the FIRST experience.
Quote:
The final reason is because FIRST has raised the bar and requires synergy between teams (mostly drivetrain and control systems) that just can't happen in 6 weeks.
That's exactly the purpose of the 6 weeks- it's a challenge.
Reply With Quote
  #5   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 29-04-2004, 14:28
Adam Y.'s Avatar
Adam Y. Adam Y. is offline
Adam Y.
no team (?????)
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Long Island
Posts: 1,979
Adam Y. is a splendid one to beholdAdam Y. is a splendid one to beholdAdam Y. is a splendid one to beholdAdam Y. is a splendid one to beholdAdam Y. is a splendid one to beholdAdam Y. is a splendid one to beholdAdam Y. is a splendid one to behold
Send a message via AIM to Adam Y.
Re: On Game Design

Quote:
My proposed solution to these problems is fairly simple. For one, make the complexity of the game less. It's not a problem to raise the bar but don't make it too high for most teams to compete. However, simply making the complexity of the game less would not be enough as it would just allow teams to dominate. The real key is to also drastically restrict the allowable parts. I would highly suggest dropping the allowable spending amount to below $1000 (I think somewhere between $500 and $750 would be a good point). This has many benefits. For one, it does not stop anyone from building a complex robot; it merely makes it harder and would require more ingenious solutions. It would also require more tradeoffs to be made if one complex component were desired by a team. It also drops the required amount of fundraising a team has to do as it wouldn't be possible to spend as much money on the robot.
What!??!?!?!? Thats probably our entire budget that we would spend on metal let alone the whole entire robot. And that money is what usually amounts to us build a robot that looks pretty professionally done. It would probably make a lot of teams life's harder.
__________________
If either a public officer or any one else saw a person attempting to cross a bridge which had been ascertained to be unsafe, and there were no time to warn him of his danger, they might seize him and turn him back without any real infringement of his liberty; for liberty consists in doing what one desires, and he does not desire to fall into the river. -Mill

Last edited by Adam Y. : 29-04-2004 at 14:41.
Reply With Quote
  #6   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 29-04-2004, 15:27
Unsung FIRST Hero
Matt Leese Matt Leese is offline
Been-In-FIRST-Too-Long
FRC #1438 (The Aztechs)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: May 2001
Rookie Year: 1998
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 937
Matt Leese has a reputation beyond reputeMatt Leese has a reputation beyond reputeMatt Leese has a reputation beyond reputeMatt Leese has a reputation beyond reputeMatt Leese has a reputation beyond reputeMatt Leese has a reputation beyond reputeMatt Leese has a reputation beyond reputeMatt Leese has a reputation beyond reputeMatt Leese has a reputation beyond reputeMatt Leese has a reputation beyond reputeMatt Leese has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Matt Leese
Re: On Game Design

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Y.
What!??!?!?!? Thats probably our entire budget that we would spend on metal let alone the whole entire robot. And that money is what usually amounts to us build a robot that looks pretty professionally done. It would probably make a lot of teams life's harder.
The idea isn't supposed to make lives easier. It's supposed to make everything more balanced. It means that you have to make more tradeoffs on design (which is a key factor in real life engineering).

And while you may think that it's impossible to build a robot for that price, that number is far higher than the amount we were allowed to spend at Small Parts back in 1998 and 1999 (and probably years prior to that). And yes, you had to purchase almost all your materials from Small Parts (including aluminum, etc.; there was a small list of things you could purchase outside of Small Parts).

Matt
Reply With Quote
  #7   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 29-04-2004, 16:08
Barry Bonzack's Avatar
Barry Bonzack Barry Bonzack is offline
Impossible to rain on my parade.
FRC #1902 (Exploding Bacon)
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,776
Barry Bonzack has a reputation beyond reputeBarry Bonzack has a reputation beyond reputeBarry Bonzack has a reputation beyond reputeBarry Bonzack has a reputation beyond reputeBarry Bonzack has a reputation beyond reputeBarry Bonzack has a reputation beyond reputeBarry Bonzack has a reputation beyond reputeBarry Bonzack has a reputation beyond reputeBarry Bonzack has a reputation beyond reputeBarry Bonzack has a reputation beyond reputeBarry Bonzack has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Barry Bonzack
Re: On Game Design

Don't forget the Human element. The great thing about this year was that a human was the one making the points. Our robot had massive problems (which were finally fixed LAST NIGHT) with the drive train and was never able to run the entire UCF regional. However, the team was able to recruit a high scoring human shooter, and made what little points we started with, and the points our alliance partners generously let us have. With some luck, a good shooter, and no robot, we finished in 21st out of 41 teams. Surprisingly, if our goal was capped, the enemy alliance goal is capped, our alliance hangs one robot, and the enemy alliance hangs a robot...the game comes down to whichever team scored the most 5 point balls. Rookie teams have just as good of chance recruiting a human player as any other highschool.
__________________


Chair of Florida FIRST Alumni
Orlando Regional Planning Committee
FIRST Tech Challenge Florida Leadership Team

Program Planner on the Orion Spacecraft at the Kennedy Space Center

Twitter: @FL_FIRST_Alumni













Events I'm Emceeing/Game Announcing:
1/10/2015 FTC Jacksonville League Championship
1/11/2015 FTC Central FL Tesla League Championship
1/17/2015 FTC South Florida League Championship
1/24/2015 FTC Tampa/St. Pete League Championship
2/7/2015 FLL Orlando Regional
2/14/2015 FTC State Championship
2/26-2/28/15 FRC South Florida Regional
3/8/2015 FLL State Championship
3/12-3/14/15 FRC Orlando Regional
4/22-4/25/15 FIRST World Championship Event - FTC Franklin Field
Reply With Quote
  #8   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 29-04-2004, 17:05
Collin Fultz's Avatar
Collin Fultz Collin Fultz is offline
Registered User
no team (IndianaFIRST)
Team Role: Leadership
 
Join Date: May 2002
Rookie Year: 2002
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 776
Collin Fultz has a reputation beyond reputeCollin Fultz has a reputation beyond reputeCollin Fultz has a reputation beyond reputeCollin Fultz has a reputation beyond reputeCollin Fultz has a reputation beyond reputeCollin Fultz has a reputation beyond reputeCollin Fultz has a reputation beyond reputeCollin Fultz has a reputation beyond reputeCollin Fultz has a reputation beyond reputeCollin Fultz has a reputation beyond reputeCollin Fultz has a reputation beyond repute
Re: On Game Design

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonzack1390
Rookie teams have just as good of chance recruiting a human player as any other highschool.
yes but a team who gives their human player 18 extra chances to shoot 5 pt balls because they catch them all (good robot 93! ) has a better chance of getting more points
__________________
Collin Fultz
Reply With Quote
  #9   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 29-04-2004, 19:24
Ryan F.'s Avatar
Ryan F. Ryan F. is offline
Registered User
no team
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 376
Ryan F. is a jewel in the roughRyan F. is a jewel in the roughRyan F. is a jewel in the rough
Re: On Game Design

I think that the kit allows for everyone....rookie or not....to be able to build some sort of a robot to compete. Simply use the 4x2 alluminum to build your base.....stick the drill motors on....do the electronics...and there you've got a robot that can decently compete in the game.
Reply With Quote
  #10   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 29-04-2004, 20:02
Bharat Nain's Avatar
Bharat Nain Bharat Nain is offline
Registered User
no team
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: New York
Posts: 2,000
Bharat Nain has a reputation beyond reputeBharat Nain has a reputation beyond reputeBharat Nain has a reputation beyond reputeBharat Nain has a reputation beyond reputeBharat Nain has a reputation beyond reputeBharat Nain has a reputation beyond reputeBharat Nain has a reputation beyond reputeBharat Nain has a reputation beyond reputeBharat Nain has a reputation beyond reputeBharat Nain has a reputation beyond reputeBharat Nain has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Bharat Nain Send a message via MSN to Bharat Nain
Re: On Game Design

The point is, FIRST looks to inspire people... the game is ... whatever.. We can either choose to accept it as a challenge and do something about it or .... ,. Frankly, It is my first year, I don't know too much of the game except for stack attack and FIRST frenzy. From what I see, it just looks like these are moderate level games, and the success level(building a working robot) is huge in rookie and veteran teams.

However, its not only the game. There is recognition for lots of other stuff like animation, websites, helping other teams etc. If for some reason your robots are not that good, try doing other stuff. Maybe that would make you feel better. FIRST is a huge world
Reply With Quote
  #11   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 29-04-2004, 20:00
Bcahn836's Avatar
Bcahn836 Bcahn836 is offline
Iraq is fun.
AKA: Brad Cahn
no team (Robobees 836)
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Camp Taji, Iraq
Posts: 1,774
Bcahn836 has a reputation beyond reputeBcahn836 has a reputation beyond reputeBcahn836 has a reputation beyond reputeBcahn836 has a reputation beyond reputeBcahn836 has a reputation beyond reputeBcahn836 has a reputation beyond reputeBcahn836 has a reputation beyond reputeBcahn836 has a reputation beyond reputeBcahn836 has a reputation beyond reputeBcahn836 has a reputation beyond reputeBcahn836 has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Bcahn836 Send a message via Yahoo to Bcahn836
Re: On Game Design

The game and the rules should not limit my or anyone else's creativity in the design of complex systems or any other aspect of building a robot or the strategy of how to play the game.
Reply With Quote
  #12   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 29-04-2004, 16:27
Paul Copioli's Avatar Unsung FIRST Hero Woodie Flowers Award
Paul Copioli Paul Copioli is offline
President, VEX Robotics, Inc.
FRC #3310 (Black Hawk Robotics)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Rookie Year: 2000
Location: Rockwall, TX
Posts: 1,393
Paul Copioli has a reputation beyond reputePaul Copioli has a reputation beyond reputePaul Copioli has a reputation beyond reputePaul Copioli has a reputation beyond reputePaul Copioli has a reputation beyond reputePaul Copioli has a reputation beyond reputePaul Copioli has a reputation beyond reputePaul Copioli has a reputation beyond reputePaul Copioli has a reputation beyond reputePaul Copioli has a reputation beyond reputePaul Copioli has a reputation beyond repute
Re: On Game Design

O.K. I'm ready to chime in. I am going to address one aspect of Matt's original post: Additional parts restriction and money restriction. Many of you that know me or have had this conversation with me already know where I am going, but here I go again.

At first glance, one would think that restricting additional parts would level the playing field. On the contray, the more restriction placed on the additional parts; the more advantage the "big money" teams have. The ThunderChickens are one of those "big money" teams. If the restriction went to $700, or even $500 our machine would look the same. Why? We can make everything we currently buy. We buy a $25 gear today and I could have it made on a wire EDM for free (cost of the steel ~$2) by our sponsor. We currently chose not to do this, but we could. With no restriction, the small team could buy the same $25 gear. If the restriction existed, the small team would have to pay anywhere between $50 to $250 to have it made if they could find a place at all. The tighter the restriction, the more advantage my team has.

Another huge downfall of the restriction is the need for us to get T.V. exposure. What? How does the additional part restrictions have anything to do with T.V. exposure? The robots have to look good if we want to be on T.V. If they look like something we built in our garage, then we will have a harder time getting exposure. Look at the moster trucks .. beautiful artwork and design that gets destroyed at each competition ... the looks do nothing for the function but it is important for the exposure. Same goes for NASCAR or Drag Racing, or Formula 1. Looks matter and restriction on parts will kill any chance we have of getting real T.V. exposure.

Either way, we will play with whatever rules we are given because the ThunderChickens will be inspired either way.

-Paul
Reply With Quote
  #13   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 29-04-2004, 17:49
Marc P. Marc P. is offline
I fix stuff.
AKA: βetamarc
no team
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: Watertown, CT
Posts: 997
Marc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Marc P.
Re: On Game Design

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Copioli
If the restriction went to $700, or even $500 our machine would look the same. Why? We can make everything we currently buy. We buy a $25 gear today and I could have it made on a wire EDM for free (cost of the steel ~$2) by our sponsor. We currently chose not to do this, but we could. With no restriction, the small team could buy the same $25 gear. If the restriction existed, the small team would have to pay anywhere between $50 to $250 to have it made if they could find a place at all. The tighter the restriction, the more advantage my team has.

Another huge downfall of the restriction is the need for us to get T.V. exposure. What? How does the additional part restrictions have anything to do with T.V. exposure? The robots have to look good if we want to be on T.V. If they look like something we built in our garage, then we will have a harder time getting exposure. Look at the moster trucks .. beautiful artwork and design that gets destroyed at each competition ... the looks do nothing for the function but it is important for the exposure. Same goes for NASCAR or Drag Racing, or Formula 1. Looks matter and restriction on parts will kill any chance we have of getting real T.V. exposure.

Either way, we will play with whatever rules we are given because the ThunderChickens will be inspired either way.
I'll respectfully disagree. I understand your argument- you're saying you can manufacture parts just as easily as you buy them. However, I'm on a team with limited funds, and helped produce one of the many robots this season that came in at or under $1200.

I do believe Matt's point though, was this-

If other teams are capable of producing equally, if not more capable robots for much less money, why do teams have to spend the full $3000? Personally, I like the robots that look like they came out of a garage better than the polished up show robots. Maybe as Matt's info says, I've "been in FIRST too long", but I like seeing the ins and outs of a robot's systems. A machine will look good if it's well built, and throwing more money at a machine won't make it any better. What makes a machine great is it's fundadmental design and inherent functionality, not how much money is spent on it. To expand on that idea further, FIRST is about inspiring kids about science and technology, and what better way to get kids thinking than by presenting a problem. I'd rather students think of a creative and innovative method of coping with a mechanical issue with given resources, rather than say "well, we could always just buy this." My team has always been on a limited budget, so we're forced to find creative ways around what otherwise would end up as an expense, and I wouldn't trade anything in the world for that experience.

As far as TV exposure, I'd almost fear that for FIRST at this point. FIRST is no monster truck rally, or racing event, or sports game, and shares none of the values each of them entail. The only way robotics will become interesting to TV audiences is if they become all out battlebots. I think FIRST is trying to change America on a culteral level by planting the seeds of gracious professionalism in the youth of the nation, and hope it grows and flowers once those students grow up and become the leaders of the future.

Personally, I'd rather not see FIRST sacrifice it's roots of inspiration to pander to the TV crowd, even if the intentions are to inspire the TV crowd. I feel too much of what FIRST means would be lost in the process.
Reply With Quote
  #14   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 29-04-2004, 18:03
MikeDubreuil's Avatar
MikeDubreuil MikeDubreuil is offline
Carpe diem
FRC #0125 (Nu-Trons)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 967
MikeDubreuil has a reputation beyond reputeMikeDubreuil has a reputation beyond reputeMikeDubreuil has a reputation beyond reputeMikeDubreuil has a reputation beyond reputeMikeDubreuil has a reputation beyond reputeMikeDubreuil has a reputation beyond reputeMikeDubreuil has a reputation beyond reputeMikeDubreuil has a reputation beyond reputeMikeDubreuil has a reputation beyond reputeMikeDubreuil has a reputation beyond reputeMikeDubreuil has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to MikeDubreuil
Re: On Game Design

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc P.
As far as TV exposure, I'd almost fear that for FIRST at this point. FIRST is no monster truck rally, or racing event, or sports game, and shares none of the values each of them entail.
I think we just need to find the right channel. How can golf, billiards or specifically curling be on television? Essentially because there's an audience to watch those programs on those channels. What FIRST needs is a channel (I.E: Tech TV) that has viewers that would want to watch a robotics competition, then some advertisers to air commercials during the time (Delphi, Ford, IBM, Microsoft, Autodesk, etc.).

If we could have a television network broadcast the final matches from Einstein we would be golden.
__________________
"FIRST is like bling bling for the brain." - Woodie Flowers
Reply With Quote
  #15   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 29-04-2004, 18:39
Paul Copioli's Avatar Unsung FIRST Hero Woodie Flowers Award
Paul Copioli Paul Copioli is offline
President, VEX Robotics, Inc.
FRC #3310 (Black Hawk Robotics)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Rookie Year: 2000
Location: Rockwall, TX
Posts: 1,393
Paul Copioli has a reputation beyond reputePaul Copioli has a reputation beyond reputePaul Copioli has a reputation beyond reputePaul Copioli has a reputation beyond reputePaul Copioli has a reputation beyond reputePaul Copioli has a reputation beyond reputePaul Copioli has a reputation beyond reputePaul Copioli has a reputation beyond reputePaul Copioli has a reputation beyond reputePaul Copioli has a reputation beyond reputePaul Copioli has a reputation beyond repute
Re: On Game Design

Marc P.,

What exactly do you disagre with? If the limit was $500, could you build the same robot you did with $1,200? All I am saying is that a "big money" team probably could and a low budget team probably couldn't. Is this what you disagree with?

As to the quality of a product: You say that throwing more money at a design will not make it better. Many times this is just not true. Throwing money at a design is one of the easiest ways to make something more functional. I am actually in that situation right now with a development we are working on. The trick in many engineering applications is to make it good enough for the task at hand at the lowest cost.

We will just agree to disagree about your comment on battlebots. The reason Comedy Central pulled the plug is that it was not interesting enough to capture the audiences' attention for 3 years in a row (same old, same old). We need to get the average Joe T.V. watcher to keep the channel on our competition for 10 minutes. If we can do that, then he will get interested and that will start an explosion of reaching more and more students outside of the current FIRST community. The key to those 10 minutes is flair. We need more flair.

As to your point about finding creative ways to solve problems. I agree with you, but I argue that even if the limits were opened up all the way (this year was very close) you can't just go out and buy any old component off the shelf. There is one MAJOR limiting factor we must deal with that rules almost every decision we make ... 130lb maximum. That limit forces us to make a lot more creative decisions than chsing between EDM gears vs. bought gears. I really don't like re-inventing the wheel, so just let me buy my gears (and bearings and sprockets, etc.)

I know, let's play a fun (and maybe enlightening for all) game. Let's think of a restriction we would like to put on the game to level the playing field and see how it affects different teams. Since I don't like any restriction, I won't go first.

-Paul

P.S. - I have been wating for this debate to resurface for a while now, because there are many long time FIRSTers that disagree on this subject.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2002 game prediction contest!!! Ken Leung Rumor Mill 41 31-12-2007 18:18
What changes to this year's game...? DougHogg General Forum 16 20-04-2003 15:35
game design challenge: what was your entry Ryan Foley General Forum 1 20-03-2003 21:42
"Rigging" the game vs playing the game strategically - what's the difference? ColleenShaver Rules/Strategy 13 15-01-2003 10:33
Ok, so YOU design the 2003 game... dlavery General Forum 157 07-01-2003 23:55


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 00:41.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi