Ok, so YOU design the 2003 game...

[Doogan]

Originally posted by dlavery
[Also, I want to ask for a little help in answering a question that has me stumped. Several of the posts have suggested having a game design that will allow real time display of scores to the audiences as the game progresses. It is suggested this will pull the audience into the game a little more, and get them more involved. But coming up with a reliable, accurate way to do this that does not interrupt the flow of the game may be problematic.

Air Hockey, though not a commonly broadcast sport, does include realtime scoring, if not entirely reliable. With the worlds geniuses at our back , I am sure that we can improve on them to make them reliable enough. I think the easiest thing to sense would be the scooters I mentioned in my last post, sliding through some sort of slot. The slot could include the necessary scoring equipment.

One way to sense the scooters would be a pair of limit switches. The scooter would hold down A, then A and B, then just B, and finally none. This sequence would signify a score. Teams would be advised not to insert scooters in too close of a sequence.

We might also use scooters with a border of a particular material, for which a proximity sensor is available. This material could be forbidden for robots, ensuring that scores would not be faked by robot appendages. The scooters could, again, have to pass through two sequential sensors to be counted, but this could allow more to pass through.

Maybe we could use optical sensors, and have a circular pattern radiating from the center of each scooter, allowing it to be reliably read no matter how it was oriented upon entry. The ringcode could be designed to prevent the repeated entry and removal of scooters, and could be distributed by FIRST to game hosts in the form of large stickers.

Perhaps, whatever sensors were used, the scooter could be sent into the "goal" and land on a conveyor, which the robot could not access, and which would bring the scooters under the sensors in an orderly fashion, preventing tampering.

I don't know if these are feasible, but they seem like possibilities.

[Aaron Lussier]

It seems with FIRST the possibilites are endless but here are my Ideas:

1. Have random types of balls on the field i.e( Footballs, Tennis balls, and or Bocchi balls.

2. Go to a 1 V 1 V 1 much like the A/B/C game mentioned in eariler posts.

3. Have a field shaped like Paperclip and or change the rectangle to some else that will grab peoples attention.

[Vyrotek]

What about something with PingPong balls? Instead of having these big robots that push or lift giant ojbects... why not make it so that there are hundreds of little pingpong balls (perhaps different colors?) And have the robots maybe life them up and put them in a rain-gutter type deal that would be about 5' in the air on the sides? Just thought it would be fun!

[Hubicki]

I'm not so hot about the A,B,C game setup. Coordinating with an alliance partner is one of the most unique aspects of the FIRST competition. In a free-for-all game setup, there will be lots of "unofficial alliances" being formed. Teams that know eachother will gang up on the third team. Also, high ranked teams will be ganged up on to knock them down. It would start to resemble the strategic aspects of "Survivor" more so than a FIRST competition (back-stabbing, "flying under the radar", informal agreements and such). The cut-throat, lying, manipulating teams would make it to the top. Also, eliminations would be rather tricky to configure, and the whole idea of draft-picking would be eliminated. 2v2 is exciting, and it works.
~Hubicki~

[Andrew]

Originally posted by dlavery
[Also, I want to ask for a little help in answering a question that has me stumped. Several of the posts have suggested having a game design that will allow real time display of scores to the
audiences as the game progresses. It is suggested this will pull the audience into the game a little more, and get them more involved. But coming up with a reliable, accurate way to do this
that does not interrupt the flow of the game may be problematic.

Curling has both real time score + time clock + score can change drastically on the last shot.

Robotic curling could involve robots shoving around a bunch of stones into a circle with concentric lines drawn. The stone closest to the center scores for the team. So, if team A has one stone closest to the center, it wins with one point. If it has two stones closer than Team B, then it scores 2 points. Etc.

Robots can lift, slide, ricochet, hold onto stones, etc. They would be disallowed from touching stones in the scoring circle and could only initiate a shot with one of their stones.


Andrew
Team 356

[Hubicki]

I was thinking about the problems of this year's game and all of the answers came to me in a dream (I know, dreaming about FIRST ). Each of the scoring aspects this game represented a different type of robot design (drive design mostly). The goals represented the high torque robots that could shove their way through anything. The ball robots (in general, but not all) tended to be faster and more maneuverable to scoop up all of those balls. The robot zone scoring aspect represented fastbots and tethers . And then I thought about that ultimatum of the goal aspect. The three goal win, cancelled out everything. This ultimatum is what caused High torque robots to do so well in eliminations. This also caused the complete neglect of balls in many elimination matches (especially Nationals). And since goal handlers were often uber-torque robots, that swung the game completely favor of them. Of course you already know this...
But the source of the problem was the ultimatum. In next years' game, no ultimatum should exist that allows the neglect of a scoring aspect. This should create a new FIRST-game general aspect. The rock-paper-scissors aspect. Scoring method B often cancells out scoring method A, C cancells out B, etc. If the scoring is balanced evenly amongst these three aspects, there would be no ultimatum that neglects any of these three aspects.
Let's considered Zone-Zeal modified to a Rock-Paper-Scissors format. Goals should stay 10 points each. Lets up balls to 2 points each in a goal (because they are naturally cancelled by goals) and 1 point each if a robot has it picked up off of the ground. Finally, we'll up the robot scoring to 15 points each (also, we enforce the strict zone interpretation to make tethers less favorable). Now lets consider similar situations in this years game, a robot forces three goals into their zone and holds them there and the other robot stays back. This would normally be an automatic win (40, 20), but now, the other alliance picks up 16 balls and gets back to their zone, it's (45, 46) and the ball handling team wins. However, if balls are simply being picked up and not being put into goals, in fear of the goals being stolen, then the other team just then piles balls in the goals for the double value and wins. Balls in goals are cancelled out by goals being shifted from zone to zone. And simply the use of goals is shut out by the simply picked up balls and the robot zone. This balances out the game for ball-handlers and goal handlers.
I think that the rock-paper-scissors general format will result in very interesting and infinitely effective games. Especially, if each aspect is almost radically different. The strategy will be infinite and it would be impossible to say that any one aspect is "better" than another.
~Hubicki~

_________________________________________________
Shoot, I rambled again...

[dixonij]

I know that I have posted on frisbees being an object in the 2003 game but I still think that using frisbees would rock. Imagine how hard it would be to have a robot pick up frisbees. The launching mechanism would have to be two horizontal wheels spinning in opposite directions and (maybe) a vertical wheel. In order to have an accurate shot we can the neglected sensor system to aim properly. In terms of field dimensions and specs, I have no ideas.

[Andrew]

I know that I have posted on frisbees being an object in the 2003 game but I still think that using frisbees would rock. Imagine how hard it would be to have a robot pick up frisbees.

I have a dog (Mouse for those of you who met him at Nationals) who has an interesting technique for picking up frisbees. He runs up and whams on the edge of the frisbee. The thing flips up into the air (like a tiddly-wink) and he catches it in his mouth. Not bad for a three legged dog.

So, I suspect that robots picking up frisbees will not be as hard as you imagine.
Andrew
Team 356

[dixonij]

Originally posted by Andrew


I have a dog (Mouse for those of you who met him at Nationals) who has an interesting technique for picking up frisbees. He runs up and whams on the edge of the frisbee. The thing flips up into the air (like a tiddly-wink) and he catches it in his mouth. Not bad for a three legged dog.
So, I suspect that robots picking up frisbees will not be as hard as you imagine.

Interesting solution. Here's another: Have the frisbees lying on the ground. Use a system like my launcher ( or maybe even the launcher that can move up and down) and have it drive over the frisbee and suck it up into a storage container.

[rlowerr_1]

I don’t want to sound negative but I don’t think having mutable levels of playing field or Frisbees will ever happen.

Concerning the multiple levels

I don’t think that this will happen for two reasons. First building The second level will require lots of material to make it sturdy enough for the robots. This will cost allot to build for the completions and for teams to build and practice on. It also poses a safety issue of robots falling off and breaking.

And concerning the Frisbees

I’m not opposed to using something besides balls but I don’t think the Frisbees will be used. First I don’t believe that there are any standard sizes of Frisbees so if a team wants to buy more it may be hard for them to find the exact same ones. I personally feel that balls are the best way to go. Instead of changing the 'playable units' I think it would be better to change how they are scored. Maybe a goal with and opening in it just big enough for one ball at a time. Or even a goal that is blocked off so that the robots are kept 3 feet away from it. This encourages launching the balls or having long arms to place the balls in the goal.

[Hubicki]

I think we should not use balls again next year. Teams are getting used to handling/picking up balls. Ball collection systems will begin looking similar to previous years. Teams who manipulated balls will have advanced knowledge over rookies and 'non-ball' handling teams, giving them an unfair advantage. The mechanics of ball collection remain static despite their usage in the game. If balls are implemented, teams will simply look at robot designs in previous years. Yes, the designs will be better, but not by the teams own inginuity. Also, FIRST seems to like keeping teams on their toes. Using other devices would be most beneficial.
In regards to frisbees, FIRST can use a cetain brand of frisbees for uniformities sake. Plus, teams will given a frisbee or too in the kit. We need some kind of obscure, yet recognizable playing mechanism. Frisbees or footballs would both accomplish this. They can be handles an easy way (dumping them), or a harder way (launching them). Launching them would be a good FIRST challenge in itself because of the spin needed to keep them aloft and in a straight path. These mechanisms would be extaordinarily effective in a FIRST game.

~Hubicki~
_____________________________________
Shoot, I rambled again.

[Mark Koors]

Let's think outside the box a little here. Most of the items suggested for manipulation are from sports. How about mellons or eggs or another "not so tough" friut or vegetable. That might have some interesting repercussions for the robot.

Just a thought.

[DanL]

Originally posted by rlowerr_1
I’m not opposed to using something besides balls but I don’t think the Frisbees will be used. First I don’t believe that there are any standard sizes of Frisbees so if a team wants to buy more it may be hard for them to find the exact same ones.

So wrong. Frisbees are standardized. Sports Authority, for example carries three classes of frisbees. Ultimate-class frisbees are 175 grams. Freestyle-class frisbees are 160 grams. There are also general-play frisbees at 145 grams.

Wrightlife.com has a list of the standard disc classes:

VINTAGE CLASS - Discs in this classification meet three WFDF (World Flying Disc Federation) specifications. the first specification is a non-beveled edge; the second is a 6.7 gram per centimeter outside diameter weight limit. The third entails a flexibility standard. Discs of this nature are suggested for short courses, and are excellent for player development.
HEAVY CLASS - Discs in this class meet both WFDF general disc specifications which include all discs currently approved by the PDGA (Pro Disc Golf Association). This disc classification is appropriate for all disc golf courses with limited public access. Discs must not weigh more than 8.3 grams per centimeter of outside diameter.
THE 150 CLASS .- 150 class discs include all discs currently approved by the PDGA, weighing no more than 150 grams, and meeting certain flexibility standards. Not widely available until recently, these discs have made a considerable impact for players of all abilities.

Frisbee is much more standardized than you think. Colleges have Ulitmate Frisbee leagues. I even know people in New Jersey who have an ultimate frisbee league for high schools in the area, much like football or lacross leagues.

[edit]For more info, try these sites:
http://www.wfdf.org/
http://www.pdga.com/
http://www.platypusdisc.com/resource_pages/links.htm
[/edit]

[Andrew]

Interesting solution. Here's another: Have the frisbees lying on the ground. Use a system like my launcher ( or maybe even the launcher that can move up and down) and have it drive over the frisbee and
suck it up into a storage container.

Sucking could only be used if FIRST relaxed the "custom pneumatics" rule. Two years ago they prohibited suction systems from picking up the big balls.

Ball collection systems will begin looking similar to previous years. Teams who manipulated balls will have
advanced knowledge over rookies and 'non-ball' handling teams, giving them an unfair advantage.

Unfortunately, teams with large engineering staffs will have a huge advantage over teams with a small engineering staff if FIRST goes with a completely new challenge. Further, a totally new challenge will result in one or two "good" solutions and a bunch of "good ideas, poorly implemented."

IMHO, staying with balls (not necessarily the exact same balls as either this year or last year) actually levels the playing field, since non-ball handling teams can look at what worked for ball handling teams the previous year. Granted, my team picked up balls in 2000 and 2002, so I have a slight bias on this issue.

Although I would love to manipulate frisbees or footballs, I would also love to iterate one more time and have a professional quality pick-up and shooter for round balls. JUST GIVE ME SOMETHING TO THROW!

Andrew, Team 356

[E. The Kidd]

has anyone considered hula hoops?