Go to Post There are few times I sleep so soundly as I do after an FRC build season and regional. - JamesCH95 [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 Rating: Thread Rating: 20 votes, 5.00 average. Display Modes
  #31   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 07-05-2002, 19:10
Andrew Andrew is offline
Registered User
#0356
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Little Rock, AR
Posts: 393
Andrew is a name known to allAndrew is a name known to allAndrew is a name known to allAndrew is a name known to allAndrew is a name known to allAndrew is a name known to all
When designing next year's game, FIRST needs to decide two factors before proceeding.
1. How important is it that the over all winner be the best alliance?
2. Is being TV friendly essential?

If being TV friendly is important, you want a scoring system that accurately tallies points in real time. The audience should not be watching the match and simultaneously trying to count the score.

If you are going to have balls/frisbees/pucks placed/shot into goals, there needs to be no chance of "unscoring." You probably only want one ball (or a small number of balls) which can be scored repeatedly. Multipliers would be a "no-no."

If teams are going to compete in alliances (red and blue) and if the playing field is going to have preferences for red and blue scoring, then those areas of the field should be clearly marked with that color. The alliance station should be more clearly demarked than with the current flashing light. Perhaps the diamond plate can be painted red or blue.

You also want the best alliances possible in your elimination matches. The big TV payoff will come in the hard fought final matches

2. The current qualifying system does not create the best eight alliances. The random factor can bias a team's ranking by +- 10 positions (at least). Although, on average, the best teams float to the top, one unlucky pairing can keep a contender out of the elimination rounds.

I would recommend a three stage competition, instead of the current two stage competition.
1. Day one is qualifying (just like now). At the end of the day, the top 40 ranked teams can compete on day two. Lowest score is not dropped.

2. The top 40 teams continue to compete in randomly paired alliances through the morning of day two. You should be able to get three more matches per team in. The lowest score is dropped at this point. At the end of this phase of the competition, the top 24 teams are retained and go on to elimination matches.

3. Selection occurs as before, but from the top 24 teams.

Another, unrelated thought. It might be interesting to divide the teams at each competition into Red and Blue divisions. You get partnered within your division and play against the other division, exclusively. Perhaps, at Nationals, the divisions would partner within the division and oppose the other divisions (IE Curie versus Einstein, Archimedes, and Newton).

Andrew
Team 356
Reply With Quote
  #32   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 07-05-2002, 20:00
Kris Verdeyen's Avatar
Kris Verdeyen Kris Verdeyen is offline
LSR Emcee/Alamo Game Announcer
FRC #0118 (Robonauts)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 699
Kris Verdeyen has a reputation beyond reputeKris Verdeyen has a reputation beyond reputeKris Verdeyen has a reputation beyond reputeKris Verdeyen has a reputation beyond reputeKris Verdeyen has a reputation beyond reputeKris Verdeyen has a reputation beyond reputeKris Verdeyen has a reputation beyond reputeKris Verdeyen has a reputation beyond reputeKris Verdeyen has a reputation beyond reputeKris Verdeyen has a reputation beyond reputeKris Verdeyen has a reputation beyond repute
Quote:
Originally posted by Andrew
Another, unrelated thought. It might be interesting to divide the teams at each competition into Red and Blue divisions. You get partnered within your division and play against the other division, exclusively. Perhaps, at Nationals, the divisions would partner within the division and oppose the other divisions (IE Curie versus Einstein, Archimedes, and Newton).
Although I don't agree with the rest of the post - The top eight teams in each division are usually among the top 25% of robots at a comp anyway, and there's no way (or reason) to eliminate luck entirely - I do like the idea of being partnered within your division and playing those teams outside your division.

It would give everyone a team to root for in each match. The trouble with it is that it would probably make the scores more random, not less.
__________________
...Only a few people are awake and they live in a state of constant total amazement. -JP Shanley, Joe vs. the Volcano
Reply With Quote
  #33   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 07-05-2002, 20:36
Jeff Waegelin's Avatar
Jeff Waegelin Jeff Waegelin is offline
El Jefe de 148
AKA: Midwest Refugee
FRC #0148 (Robowranglers)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: Greenville, TX
Posts: 3,132
Jeff Waegelin has a reputation beyond reputeJeff Waegelin has a reputation beyond reputeJeff Waegelin has a reputation beyond reputeJeff Waegelin has a reputation beyond reputeJeff Waegelin has a reputation beyond reputeJeff Waegelin has a reputation beyond reputeJeff Waegelin has a reputation beyond reputeJeff Waegelin has a reputation beyond reputeJeff Waegelin has a reputation beyond reputeJeff Waegelin has a reputation beyond reputeJeff Waegelin has a reputation beyond repute
Here's my idea for a game:

Six robots are on the field, in three alliances, for a 2v2v2 setup. The field is a triangle, approximately 48 feet by 48 feet (twice the current size). Alliances start at each of the corners of the triangle.

In the center is a somewhat triangle-shaped platform approximately 24"-30" high. At each corner is a set of stairs with ball bins on either side, and on each flat side is a cutout and a climbing pole. On the deck of this platform lies three goals.

The object is simple: score balls, and get onto the platform. Each ball in a floor bin is worth 1 point and each ball in the platform goal is 2 points. There would be 20 soccer balls on each side of the field to do so. A robot on the stairs or elevated on the pole is worth 3 points, and each robot on the platform is 5 points.

While designing this game, I came across a few problems, as well as a few added possibilities. To try to prevent robots from being knocked off there would be a 6" barrier on the pole sides. The stairs would probably be open, but could possibly have a barrier, too.

Another possibility is allowing robots to drive under the platform, if they are under a certain height. This might depend on the strength of the platform. If this worked, 3 points for being under the platform is a possiblity.

If you think of any ideas, comments, or criticism of my design, feel free to post something. If you really think this idea is terrible, or if you think it's the best thing since sliced bread, I want to know.

Also, attached is a drawing of my field plan.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	fieldidea03.jpg
Views:	239
Size:	53.4 KB
ID:	480  
__________________
Jeff Waegelin
Mechanical Engineer, Innovation First Labs
Lead Engineer, Team 148 - The Robowranglers
Reply With Quote
  #34   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 07-05-2002, 21:12
Happy Birthday! Kyle Hill Kyle Hill is offline
Registered User
#0311 (Red Jammers)
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: East Islip, NY
Posts: 71
Kyle Hill is an unknown quantity at this point
Send a message via AIM to Kyle Hill
Ah.. see, the problem with using 1-point balls of basically the same size is that teams like Aztechs and RAGE have created such good designs for picking up the balls that half of the teams will try to copy them next year, if they can.

If you use a different medium like donuts or discs or oblong balls, such have been suggested, everyone will be forced to come up with a new solution to a new problem next year, which is really the true aim of FIRST.
__________________
Team 311, the Red Jammers...
-2002 KSC Semifinalists
-2002 SBPLI Regional Chairman's Winners
-2002 Einstein #1 Seeded Champions
-2002 National Finalists
-2002 WPI Battlecry Champions
Reply With Quote
  #35   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 07-05-2002, 21:25
PsychoPhil's Avatar
PsychoPhil PsychoPhil is offline
Registered User
None #0885 (Central vermont Robotics (The Green Team))
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: VT
Posts: 117
PsychoPhil is an unknown quantity at this point
well...

I definitely like the idea of enabling robots and allow them to move for 10 or 15 seconds before the drivers controls are enabled. That would make us think more about sensors and that kind of stuff and require some programming, that would be interesting...

Also, I like the ice idea, but I think it would be hard to make sure that the ice doesn't get to warm from robots giving off heat and moving on it. And water would be every robots dead.

Dirt, nope, harms a robot....

I like he rope idea: Let the robots move along a rope to reach anothe part of the playing field where they can also climb onto boxes of different height to score more points.

I like two robots going against two; four against four (i believe it was tried earlier didn't work as well); and there should be some teamwork, 2 against two this year was very good.
That's general things...

I'm working on a complete game and rules and will post it when it is ready.
__________________
Team #885 (GO VERMONT!)
*2002 Rookie Allstar Award at J&J Regional in New Jersey
*2002 Highest Rookie Seed Award at J&J Regional in New Jersey
*2002 Imagery Award at Canadian Regional (long live the Cowpants)
*2002 "Rally in the Valley" Off-Season Tournament Winning Alliance
*2002 "Rally in the Valley" Off-Season Tournament "Attractiveness in Engineering" Award
Reply With Quote
  #36   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 07-05-2002, 22:31
GregT GregT is offline
Registered User
no team
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: FL
Posts: 400
GregT will become famous soon enough
Send a message via AIM to GregT
the cure to the FIRST soccar ball problem, FOOTBALLS!

I like the idea of enabling code execution before driver controls are enabled, but that would require a re-design of the first controller thats already been redesigned for next year.
__________________
The above was my opinion. I'm wrong a lot. I'm sarcastic a lot. Try not to take me too seriously.
Reply With Quote
  #37   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 07-05-2002, 23:39
Kris Verdeyen's Avatar
Kris Verdeyen Kris Verdeyen is offline
LSR Emcee/Alamo Game Announcer
FRC #0118 (Robonauts)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 699
Kris Verdeyen has a reputation beyond reputeKris Verdeyen has a reputation beyond reputeKris Verdeyen has a reputation beyond reputeKris Verdeyen has a reputation beyond reputeKris Verdeyen has a reputation beyond reputeKris Verdeyen has a reputation beyond reputeKris Verdeyen has a reputation beyond reputeKris Verdeyen has a reputation beyond reputeKris Verdeyen has a reputation beyond reputeKris Verdeyen has a reputation beyond reputeKris Verdeyen has a reputation beyond repute
Re: well...

Quote:
Originally posted by PsychoPhil
...Dirt, nope, harms a robot....

A ship in a harbor is safe, my friend.
And so are robots in dirt.


Wait - that's not how that goes...


My point is that sure dirt harms robots, but air harms robots. If you want a robot that will never break, then make a pretend robot, (or call it "Pioneer" or "Voyager", that seems to have a good effect). I think that we should give the FIRST teams a chance to surprise us, by throwing a complete curveball like a new playing surface.

And you guys have all taken a look at Dave's story about how well robots not designed for water handled a water-covered field, haven't you? I'm sure that robots designed for dirt could handle a dirt field at least as well.


Speaking of - Dave still hasn't told us his idea. Whatdya got?
__________________
...Only a few people are awake and they live in a state of constant total amazement. -JP Shanley, Joe vs. the Volcano

Last edited by Kris Verdeyen : 08-05-2002 at 00:03.
Reply With Quote
  #38   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 07-05-2002, 23:47
Not2B's Avatar
Not2B Not2B is offline
Registered User
AKA: Brian Graham
FRC #0862 (Lightning Robotics)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Rookie Year: 2002
Location: Farmington Hills, Mi
Posts: 401
Not2B has a reputation beyond reputeNot2B has a reputation beyond reputeNot2B has a reputation beyond reputeNot2B has a reputation beyond reputeNot2B has a reputation beyond reputeNot2B has a reputation beyond reputeNot2B has a reputation beyond reputeNot2B has a reputation beyond reputeNot2B has a reputation beyond reputeNot2B has a reputation beyond reputeNot2B has a reputation beyond repute
Neat Question

How fun...
I am new to FIRST this year, so I have NO idea what was going on in the last several years... but, here is what I would like to see someday...

- More computer control (few seconds at the beginning or END of the match with no human control.) Software code is cheap, even small teams can afford to write code.

- Use different objects - some teams are WAY ahead in figuring out how to play with a ball. (I know, my team didn't even try to pick up balls this year.)

- tug 'o' war is boring

- fast paced, fast motion is fun to watch

OK... so here is my game:

-rectangle field
-2 teams at each end (working together)
-wall several feet tall, but with a gap under it. (Think low vollyball net)
-balls (or whatever items you wish) in devices along the side of the field that can be emptied into the field (pull a rope, reach in a grab, open a door, hit a button, use your imagination)
-goal of game is to chuck and fling and push as many balls (or other items) onto the other teams side. Kinda like a twisted vollyball / dodgeball match. You can toss over the wall, or under the wall. Teams can lower shields to prevent balls being pushed under. Balls can be tossed over the wall (plexiglass wall would be cool).

No rules about what side of the wall your bot has to stay on. (collect balls in a storage bag and cross to the other side?) Rookie teams could still push balls under, and make shields. Older teams could access more balls high up in the air, and chuck balls over the wall quickly.

OK, I'm done.... I got long winded AGAIN...
__________________
Brian Graham
Reply With Quote
  #39   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 07-05-2002, 23:58
Gui Cavalcanti's Avatar
Gui Cavalcanti Gui Cavalcanti is offline
Robogeek
no team
Team Role: College Student
 
Join Date: May 2001
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: Needham, MA
Posts: 224
Gui Cavalcanti is a name known to allGui Cavalcanti is a name known to allGui Cavalcanti is a name known to allGui Cavalcanti is a name known to allGui Cavalcanti is a name known to allGui Cavalcanti is a name known to all
Send a message via AIM to Gui Cavalcanti
My two cents

First of all, I believe that traction has become way too important of a feature. It started mildly in 2001, with teams really getting the hang of it, and then progressed into 2002 with some absolutely insane traction devices. I say, make people learn and take away their learned traction skills - put linoleum down on the FIRST floor.

You could get those really really long, wide pieces of linoleum usually used in cheap bathrooms to coat the floor, and place it across the field. That way, teams would have to rethink their options traction-wise.

Here's my idea for a game:

The game is 2 on 2. The playing field is divided into two zones, each covered with 10 to 20 PVC struts that have a base to them (think traffic cone FIRSTified). There are also two goals on each end of the field, with a large platform on top of them that you can balance struts on (7 or more feet in the air). The idea is that for every strut standing in your side of the field by the end of the match, you get 2 points. For every strut supported by your robot (not in contact with the ground), you get 1 point. For every strut knocked over, you get -1 point. Managing to balance a struct on the goal on the opposite end of the field nets you 5 points each for your alliance.

The idea is to space the struts on the field so that robots must be very maneuverable to get around them. Maybe you could cover each strut with retroreflectors at their top so you could have "Autoavoid" as you maneuver your way through the struts.

That was my random ranting for tonight.. man i must be tired
__________________
Gui Cavalcanti

All-Purpose College Mentor with a Mechanical Specialty

Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering, Class of 2008
Reply With Quote
  #40   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 08-05-2002, 02:25
Digo's Avatar
Digo Digo is offline
Registered User
AKA: Rodrigo Ribeiro
#0383 (Brazilian Machine)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Rookie Year: 2000
Location: Porto Alegre - RS - Brazil
Posts: 167
Digo is on a distinguished road
Send a message via MSN to Digo
Andrew and verdeyw talked about one division playing against another. That would require scouting of both divisions. If it happened this year in nationals, there would be about 150 teams to scout!!


Jeff Waegelin's idea looks very nice, but I found three little problems:

1. If they use soccer balls again many teams would copy ideas (this was already said).

2. Six robots is too much, mainly because there are three alliances. There would be too many things happening at the same time. That's not "TV friendly" and it's very hard for the referees to watch everything.

3. There's no scoring for robots that just walk around or are dead. In 2000 there were 5 points for robots on the ramp, in 2001 there was the end zone and the stretcher and this year we had the home zone. Some teams have serious problems and have to take an important mechanism from the robot, and moving around is the only thing they can do. There must be a way for them to score points too, I think.
__________________
Rodrigo Ribeiro
Team #383 - The Brazilian Machine
Mechanical Engineering student at UFRGS - Porto Alegre - RS - Brazil
Reply With Quote
  #41   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 08-05-2002, 08:02
Jeff Waegelin's Avatar
Jeff Waegelin Jeff Waegelin is offline
El Jefe de 148
AKA: Midwest Refugee
FRC #0148 (Robowranglers)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: Greenville, TX
Posts: 3,132
Jeff Waegelin has a reputation beyond reputeJeff Waegelin has a reputation beyond reputeJeff Waegelin has a reputation beyond reputeJeff Waegelin has a reputation beyond reputeJeff Waegelin has a reputation beyond reputeJeff Waegelin has a reputation beyond reputeJeff Waegelin has a reputation beyond reputeJeff Waegelin has a reputation beyond reputeJeff Waegelin has a reputation beyond reputeJeff Waegelin has a reputation beyond reputeJeff Waegelin has a reputation beyond repute
I thought that the three alliance idea was interesting, but the same general idea from my plan could be adapted to a two-alliance format.

It would also be possible to use different field objects, like footballs or cubes or something. Maybe we could have soccer balls, cubes, and pyramids (think 3-D FIRST logo)?

I agree that some scoring for robots that just move around is necessary, but I didn't think through it enough to decide on a way to do that. Perhaps being in the starting area could be worth a few points, too.
__________________
Jeff Waegelin
Mechanical Engineer, Innovation First Labs
Lead Engineer, Team 148 - The Robowranglers
Reply With Quote
  #42   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 08-05-2002, 08:46
Natchez Natchez is offline
Registered User
#0118 (Robonauts)
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Houston
Posts: 189
Natchez has a reputation beyond reputeNatchez has a reputation beyond reputeNatchez has a reputation beyond reputeNatchez has a reputation beyond reputeNatchez has a reputation beyond reputeNatchez has a reputation beyond reputeNatchez has a reputation beyond reputeNatchez has a reputation beyond reputeNatchez has a reputation beyond reputeNatchez has a reputation beyond reputeNatchez has a reputation beyond repute
The Wacky Warehouse Game

FIRST things FIRST, I'd like to compliment FIRST for designing a very good game this year.

Second, here is a 30 second made-for-television explanation of the Wacky Warehouse game.

======================
*****Editor's note: Bobby is visiting the Lone Star Regional with his words in {brackets}. This should be read veeeeeeeery slowwwwwwly in a deep Southern accent.

Bobby, welcome to the FIRST Robotics Competition. {Thank you for inviting me :-)} The competition this year is officially called Wacky Warehouse, although many have started calling it Tipsy Tubs because of the Rubbermaid containers that the robots have to stack on top of one another. {What is the object of the game?} Well, do you see the 30 red, blue, and green Rubbermaid containers, 10 of each, on the field? {Yes.} The two robots on the left, the red team indicated by red flashing lights on their robot, get 1 point for the container if it is stacked on top of another container, 2 points if it is stacked 3 high, 3 points if it is stacked 4 high and so on. {Is it the same for the blue team on the right with the blue and green containers?} Exactly! {Interesting, so if you stack the green ones you're making points for both teams and if you just stack your color, you just get points for your team.} {Why would you ever stack green containers?} Because, Bobby, you are trying to maximize your point total so you'll seed high. Stack a couple of green containers low and then top it off with one of your own color. Neat, 'eh. {Wow, that's taking quick thinking and cooperation to a new high!} {I can't wait to see a match}

*****Editor's note: Red, Blue, & Green Rubbermaid containers have the tops glued on and are placed systematically around an arena similar to this year's. Do the containers have something in them to weight them? You'll have to wait until you get the rules :-). Also, something is in the middle of the field ... kinda looks like two walls.

Here goes Bobby. (Booooot da bot booooooot da bot ... CHARGE! "THERE OFF!") You see team 1211 on the red alliance went straight for those green containers and is collecting 3 of them. Wow, team 118 on the blue alliance is trying for the same tubs but can't get them from 1211. Oh, there's team 1457, on the red team, picking up 4 red tubs. Now 1211 is making a pyramid out of the three green ones. Wow, 1457 is going to stack the four red tubs on top of the pyramid. Unbelievable, that top tub is worth 5 points. Team 118 is just stacking blue tubs on top of green ones. Wow, that's a bunch of 1 point tubs. Uh oh, here goes team 1289 trying to knock down the red team's pyramid. What a block by 457. (Mahhhhhhhhhhhhhh ... that's the buzzer) {Wow, that's close}
======================

If you're still interested, here is a quick list of potential twists to this game.

-Have two walls in the middle of the field with 2 openings. Inside this "room" there are a bunch of tubs. A stack of tubs, worth a lot of points, blocks each opening so teams have a choice: 1) Go over the wall and don't disturb the gimme points, 2) Carefully move the tubs so you don't knock them over, or 3) Bust through the tubs knocking them over knowing you will get more points by not wasting time saving the gimme points.

-Have sensors in the tubs to determine real-time point total.

-Must have tubs in the human player station. Tough for a human player to throw a Rubbermaid container, huh. I'm sure we'll find some way to accurately project them.

-I love the idea of having 15 seconds of autonomy at the beginning of a match. Therefore, have sensor tape on the containers with 15 seconds of autonomy.

-Have the Rubbermaid containers and/or the robots placed "randomly" (selected from a finite set of configurations) around the field so the first move is not a given. Example, this year you could have had a few different configurations of the goals (across the field [as they were], long-wise on the field, etc.).


If you're still reading, here are some good & bad points.

The good:
-Rubbermaid containers are readily available and not easily destroyed
-The wall is easily constructed out of building materials
-The scoring is simple
-Score can change quickly (some may view this as a bad thing)
-There is lots of offense (stacking the tubs)
-There is lots of defense (knocking tubs over and defending your stacks)
-Game is analogous to industrial automation
-Containers are challenging to manipulate
-Rubbermaid might pitch in a few million for team sponsorships

The bad:
-Rubbermaid containers are difficult to throw
-Inevitably, the containers will not be stacked like they were intended. Maybe the scoring value of the tub is height off the ground and not touching a robot.



Thanks for reading about my Wacky Warehouse game. If this game is ever implemented, I'd like to buy a few of the 'bots to manage my garage. Since I have everything in Rubbermaid containers, it would be nice just to tell my new Wacky Warehouse Robot to "Please go get the Christmas decorations."

Take care,
Lucien
Reply With Quote
  #43   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 08-05-2002, 10:09
MJunkin MJunkin is offline
Registered User
FRC #0118 (Robonauts)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: May 2002
Rookie Year: 2004
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 1
MJunkin is an unknown quantity at this point
Thoughts on Variable Game and Scoring

After three years of observing FIRST competitions, I offer some thoughts on a number of ways to make a FIRST game more challenging from a design perspective. I personally like the idea of combining variable (pseudo random) game piece location with an initial uncontrolled (i.e., no human control) portion (i.e. 30 seconds of the 2 minutes).

By changing the location of the game pieces (selection from a set of configurations just prior to the match), it would greatly increase the requirement for team coordination/strategy, as well as limiting the benefits of single function designs.

Combining the varying locations with the uncontrolled portion would force detection and other technoligies to be used.

The attached PDF contains 6 different goal locations, and 7 different ball locations (notionally, just for one of the goal locations).

Another change that would help make the design/competition needs for the qualifying rounds and the finals more consistent (i.e., unlike this year when ball handlers lead the qualifying, but goal handlers were the dominant force in the finals) is to revise the scoring somewhat. If you make an assumption that the best matchs are those that where there is only one point difference between the high and low score, the one could conclude that there should be similar/or equal qualifying benefit to the winners/loosers of a 50-49 match as there is to 15-14 one. To accomplish that, one could change the scoring to reflect the difference between the high and low score rather than just a multiplier of low score. For instance, the winner might get 125 points less the difference between the high and low score. The looser might get 50 points, less the difference. If there is a need to reflect raw scoring talent, then an additional factor based on combined score could also be introduced.

... just food for thought ... not that one would reuse this year's game, but as the design progresses for next year's, some alternatives to the more traditional approach could yield some interesting results.

Malcolm
Attached Files
File Type: pdf game2002_alternatives.pdf (102.4 KB, 73 views)

Last edited by MJunkin : 08-05-2002 at 10:17.
Reply With Quote
  #44   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 08-05-2002, 10:56
Joe Matt's Avatar
Joe Matt Joe Matt is offline
Wake Up Get Up Get Out There
no team
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: CAK
Posts: 5,067
Joe Matt has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Matt has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Matt has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Matt has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Matt has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Matt has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Matt has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Matt has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Matt has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Matt has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Matt has a reputation beyond repute
One of the things that bothers me about the games now is that all of the points are right infront of the robots. The goals were straight ahead, the balls to the left and right. So all we had to do was hit the gas and stear to the left and right. Question, what if we put the scoring behind or below/above the robots? Now, here is my solution, what if the robots were on a 2 foot podeum, the surface area is the max dimension of the robot allowed. There will be a slope down to the front of the scoring field. behind the robots will be 10 weights. Each with varrieing weights. Each one will count a certin amount of points. A green weight, 10 lbs, would count 10 pts. A blue weight, a 40 lber, would be 40 pts. The robots would have to pick them up and put them into goals, which are positioned to the direct left and right of the podeums you start on. They will be 3 ft wide and will be square shapped. The robots will only be able to push them, not latch onto them. There will be a 1 ft. tall piece of wood that you would have to put the weights on. The goals will weigh 30 lbs, and thus, count 30 points. Each robot will count, nothing. This will be more intresting because there will be a more fight for the death, rather than a mad sprint and leave 5 secs on the clock. Each match will be 2:30 mins. It will be a 2 vs. 2 like this year. There will be four goals total. 20 weights in total. The weights will range from 1 lbs to 50 lbs. You can pick up the goals by a.) sliding a fork lift thing under it to pick it up or b.) pick it up by a handal on top. The middle of the field will be the scoring zone, but there will only be enough room for 3 of the 4 goals, to make it intresting. Each goal will be colored and the weights in that goal will count for the appropreate team. More details to come soon along with photos.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #45   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 08-05-2002, 11:14
Simon's Avatar
Simon Simon is offline
Registered User
#0365 (Miracle Workerz)
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Wilmington, DE
Posts: 27
Simon is an unknown quantity at this point
Send a message via AIM to Simon
teams

I liked this years 2 X 2 mode for game play. it'd also be really cool to see 2 x 2 x 2 (just for the added challenge of playing against two alliances). the way things were scored this year were also much better than last year (it was much easier to keep track of and make strategies if you don't have an advanced degree in calculus ). I also liked the idea of three dimensional playing field (if only that one side is higher than the other and you need to be able to drive uphill to get to it). some of the robots this year and last year had pretty high centers of mass because they were so tall. if they had to go uphill (as I would like to see), this center of mass would tip these such tall robots over. if you keep the same size requirements as this year (I didn't see a problem with them), teams will have to think of how they distribute weight to keep them from falling over. I would also like to see a game where the balance between torque and speed is essential to the success in the game.

anyway, that's just my two cents.
Simon

p.s. stupid washers!
__________________
the library at drexel university shrinks one inch each year because the engineers who designed it didn't account for the fact that there would be books inside of it
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
Cal Game 2003 date decided... Who is interested? Ken Leung Off-Season Events 15 02-06-2003 06:48
FIRST Report Card 2003 Andy Grady General Forum 23 13-05-2003 17:11
game design challenge: what was your entry Ryan Foley General Forum 1 20-03-2003 21:42
in response to the 2003 game suspicion Sachiel7 Rumor Mill 5 02-02-2003 22:47


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 18:39.

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