|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools |
Rating:
|
Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: [Official 2006 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2006 game...
A teammate of mine (E. Wood) and I have been working on a possible game, and here's what we've come up with so far:
The field would be about the same dimensions as this year, with the driver's station on the long sides instead of the short ones. It would be 3v3 again, and the robots would start on the short sides like they did this year. Three raised platforms, one on top of the other, would be in the center of the field. On the center and highest platform, there is a basket or bucket or something of red triangles and blue squares. To retrieve these objects, all four wheels of a robot must be on the middle level, kind of like the loading zone rule this year. The objects are then taken to the end zones, where they're put in a scoring bin. The triangles and squares are worth the same amount of points. At the beginning of each match, flat green squares (or possibly pressure pads, but they might be difficult to move around between matches) will be placed randomly on each alliance's side of the field for the robots to find using a vision system like this year's. If a robot successfully finds this square, that alliance is awarded two (or three, maybe more?) white circle game pieces, worth much more than the other pieces. Near the end of the match, say around the 30-second mark, three pressure pads near each end zone will be activated, the same size and shape as each of the game pieces. Each alliance must place one of each object on the corresponding pressure pad. If they do, they will be able to retrieve a larger object from a previously barred-off position on either side of the raised platforms. If the alliance has this object in their end zone at the end of the match, they are awarded a fairly large bonus. One idea we had was that this object requires more than one robot to carry it, possibly because of its size. On the defensive side, robots are allowed to take objects off the opposing team's pressure pads, but are not allowed to take them out of their scoring bin. (One possibility if you want to allow a more aggressive defense would be to allow robots to take the objects directly off opposing robots, so long as the opposing bot isn't damaged.) Robots would be able to block their opponents from getting the objects, but they would have to be really careful not to knock them off the platforms. Let us know what you think is missing, what you like, and what you don't like. One thing we don't have is a real role for a human player; we had thought of them doing something like constructing an object that is worth more points, one that only their alliance can then use, but we didn't really define a role. If you have one, let us know. |
|
#2
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: [Official 2006 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2006 game...
Some additional random thoughts on game design (from a mentor to a rookie team...so there's not much "history" here).
1) Three teams per alliance is great. Not much in the real world gets done by one person, much less two (except in marriage..). Three is a good number. 2) Two alliance is good. Clear definition of "winner" and "loser", even though this whole event is NOT about winning & losing. Three alliances gets too convoluted for choosing partners in the finals. 3) Driver's view of filed needs to be more "flattened" like the 16:9 format of movie screens. So, move the drivers to the "longer edge" of the field. 4) Game needs to represent "real life" tasks on THREE dimensions. So doing tasks "up high" (like topping the tetra goals) as well as "down low" (like some tunnels or soemthing) is good for 3-dimensions as is driving tasks such as ramps, stairs, etc. 5) There are plenty of "obstacles" in the game such as running into another robot, or hitting a fallen tetra or game piece, or fixed field pieces. No need to create more land mines, etc. 6) There needs to be much more POSITIVE FEEDBACK to the drivers on events such as "in the zone" by way of a light, etc like a hockey goal. There was a lot of ambiguity this year about foot faults, robots in the loading zone, etc 7) The alliance lights (red/green) are a moot point in that they're impossible to see. Make the robots wear a standard "bib apron" but it is good to novices to see two "team colors"...Plus it keeps the whole subject about color preference alive. 7) Now, for something unique, I'd like to see the drivers in the MIDDLE of the field. They would need to see/drive around themselves. Could be accomplished by switching off drivers that face each other, or make the driver stations pivot, etc. WOW. Last edited by dhitchco : 19-05-2005 at 09:59. |
|
#3
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: [Official 2006 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2006 game...
Alright, so I guess it's time to lay down my concept this year, to prove what I posted in the other threads wasn't totally insane.
![]() Picture a field around the same size as this year's, with five 8' goals around the field, one at each corner, and one more at midfield in the back. Each of these goals are sort of like basketball goals, but have a long tube that ultimately feeds back into the player stations. Additionally, there is a hole in the bottom to feed balls through. In the front of the field are six loading zones, similar to the loading zones of this year, but have a barrier in front of them and a chute to load with, mainly to keep human players from getting hurt again this year. The hitch with this year's game is that the scoring is in real-time. This is the reason for the tubes--you'd probably be dealing with Banner sensors (knowing that they seemed to work reliably in 2004). Tampering or attempting to trick the system is, of course, a disqualification. The game pieces are kickballs, 8.5" in diameter. (Why 8.5" balls instead of FIRST Frenzy's 13"? Multiple reasons. First, you can get them at Wal-Mart a lot easier than you can a 13" ball. Next, it means you can't completely re-use your old ball sucker. Finally, it lets you fit more into a certain area, meaning more cuddly landmines, as the one spotlight goes.) Each team starts off with five, for a total of fifteen per alliance. These may remain in the player station, or may be pre-loaded on the robot. An additional thirty are placed in a trough at midfield, bounded by four-by-four lumber. This trough is what the center goal empties into, instead of the player station. (At this point you're thinking, "But Billfred, they're just going to create a loop at that goal!" But that won't happen, trust me. Read on.) Autonomous mode starts, and red and blue rotating lights turn on at each goal, signifying ownership. Teams then may score balls in the top of the goal, good for ten points, or herd them into the bottom, good for five points. During the human operation, the balls become worth five and three points, respectively. Teams get the option then of scoring five balls by sending them through the bottom, good for twenty-five points, getting them up into the upper part for fifty, or other things I'll explain in a minute. Here's where strategy comes in, though--scoring a ball in the center goal switches the ownership of the goals. Score another, and it switches back. So if, during autonomous mode, you went and scored a ball in the center goal, your opponents would most likely be scoring for you. For the remainder of the match, teams are moving balls into the goals, switching now and then to keep things interesting. As the balls are scored, human players are moving them to the loading zones, feeding them down the chute to the robots. Of course, this is a harder task than this year, since you've got to carry three or four playground balls instead of one tetra. But I think they're up for the challenge. Finally, there has to be some sort of bonus at the end. I imagine this as building the trough long and skinny, only four feet wide on the inside. Park your robot inside, not touching the carpet or four-by-fours, and you get fifteen more points per robot. This is three to five balls, depending on how you score them. Therefore, it's a desirable goal, but it's also able to be stopped. So that's my concept. I think it's doable, and would be interesting. You can run strategy (the center goal), go pure offense (just keep scoring on the goals), or go defense (block those goals, or switch the goals at the last second), and you've got a finale that's kinda hard (for a 28" by 38" robot, you have ten inches of leeway one way, twenty the other), but not impossible to stop. The added length of the match and the nature of the scoring means you have to design your robots to run functionally non-stop, while retaining a light touch to park your robot at the end. |
|
#4
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: [Official 2006 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2006 game...
Here is an Idea not many will like I don't think. Last year, we had 2 person alliances and during playoffs, the alliances contained 3 teams that could play. This year the number was 3 all the way through. If we do 3 team alliances for qualifying matches, I would like to see a 4 team alliance go to playoffs. Sometimes the highest ranked team not in the playoffs is not who you want.
I think next years game should me more of a combination between last years and this years game. By this I mean that there should be a lot of strategy involved like this year, but at the same time, many things your robot can do like the 2004 game. That would really be a great game. Also, this year, with the large number of objects in the way and the bigger number of robots, driving was a lot more difficult. Maybe it would be a little easier if there were less things cluttering the field, so that we could give an eaier time for the drivers. Some people may not like that idea either. Also a game where a defense robot is really valued. Teams that have built their robots for defensive prposes have not been really picked for the playoffs. Thats just my thoughts. |
![]() |
| 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 |
| [Official 2005 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2005 game... | dlavery | FRC Game Design | 37 | 26-10-2004 23:15 |
| On Game Design | Matt Leese | General Forum | 38 | 30-04-2004 19:08 |
| game design challenge: what was your entry | Ryan Foley | General Forum | 1 | 20-03-2003 21:42 |
| Ok, so YOU design the 2003 game... | dlavery | General Forum | 157 | 07-01-2003 23:55 |