|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
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 |
|
#2
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: On Game Design
Quote:
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 |
|
#3
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: On Game Design
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. |
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: On Game Design
Quote:
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:
|
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: On Game Design
Quote:
Last edited by Adam Y. : 29-04-2004 at 14:41. |
|
#6
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: On Game Design
Quote:
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 |
|
#7
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
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.
|
|
#8
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: On Game Design
Quote:
) has a better chance of getting more points |
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
|
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.
|
|
#10
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
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 ![]() |
|
#11
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
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.
|
|
#12
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
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 |
|
#13
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: On Game Design
Quote:
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. |
|
#14
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: On Game Design
Quote:
If we could have a television network broadcast the final matches from Einstein we would be golden. |
|
#15
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
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. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
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 |