2004 Game

[BBFIRSTCHICK]

I know im jumping ahead again.... but how many of you think we are going to go back to the 4 partner alliance like in 2001??? Alot of people were complaining during that season because there was no competition within the game itself. Due to the fact that we all worked together. Yet then you get to this year and you have teams rigging matches left and right. Note: 2 years ago we were complaining that there was no competition.... and here we are doing this. So do you think FIRST is going to back to the whole "working together" thing, or stick with the "friendly competition" for next years game???

[Caleb Fulton]

I think it'll be a totally new system...

[DanL]

I like this style a lot more than a 4-team alliance - I haven't been invovled in FIRST enough to expierience that, but it's something I think would rather dull. I think the problem this year with rigging matches had more to do with the game and rule design than it did with a 2 vs. 2 concept. Besides, for the most part, games were not rigged. Why let just a few bad seeds ruin the fun for the rest of us? Keep 2 vs. 2, I say.

[BBFIRSTCHICK]

Originally posted by SuperDanman
I like this style a lot more than a 4-team alliance - I haven't been invovled in FIRST enough to expierience that, but it's something I think would rather dull. I think the problem this year with rigging matches had more to do with the game and rule design than it did with a 2 vs. 2 concept. Besides, for the most part, games were not rigged. Why let just a few bad seeds ruin the fun for the rest of us? Keep 2 vs. 2, I say.

Im with you on that one Dan!!!

[Etbitmydog]

The all together 4 thing was my last year in FIRST. That competition sucked in my oppinion. There was no mystery on who would win. Beaty got insane points much above the rest of the other teams and there was nothing you could do about it.
HOPEFULLY! FIRST won't make that mistake again. I'm sure they're going to try to stop destruction of robots though. AKA FLIPPING! I'm sure FIRST is going to try something like stopping a certain inclined wedge or something. A lot of those teams with a wedge who say they try not to flip robots did it to flip robots. Theres a huge difference between a 30 degreen incline and a 60 degree one. 30 will flip you fast, 60 might get somebody off your back. What I want to see.. The return of a need to get some part of your robot above 9 feet. I'm tired of all these low to the ground robots. You can't see the competition half the time because somebody is in your way. When they had floppies everything was high and it was just soooo COOL!

[Karthik]

Originally posted by SuperDanman
Besides, for the most part, games were not rigged. Why let just a few bad seeds ruin the fun for the rest of us? Keep 2 vs. 2, I say.

Back in '98 when it was still 1 vs. 1 vs. 1 there was a lot of controversy. Here's the short version of it all. In the double elimination matches at EPCOT it was not uncommon to have a match with one dominant team and two very weak ones. In many of these matches it was suspected that the two weaker teams colluded to stop the dominant team. The weaker teams would forget about trying to score and would both pin the stronger team. The match would be decided by the human players, since none of the three teams were scoring (they were busy having a pinning contest). The game was essentially reduced to a free throw contest. (The game in 98 had a 8 foot high goal)

There was a very small number of teams who engaged in this type of behavior, but there were enough that FIRST took notice. The following year at kickoff Woody described the above situation. He then said "So you guys decided to work together last year, so this year we're making you do it!" (I'm paraphrasing, but it's pretty close) So that's part of the reason we have our current alliance format. By no means were the majority of teams playing this way, but there were still enough for FIRST to make the change.

As a result of the colluding that a small number of teams participated in this year, I would not be at all surprised if FIRST decides to revamp the game. Going back to 4 vs. 0 could be a possibility.

Of course, knowing FIRST I would expect them to have some sort completely new and challenging format for us!

[sanddrag]

I predict that FIRST is done with bars. We had it in '01 and now in '03. FIRST is also done with balls as many teams have mastered ball handling over the years. Also, I think FIRST is done with ramps but not inclines alltogether. I have a strong feeling there will be stairs. 2001 kind of matched the Segway with the idea of balancing and I think 2004 will be inspired by the I-Bot and we will have to climb stairs. Next years game will promote very complex and manipulative subsytems that will be useful in competition. This year's game somewhat backfired in that the complex stackers did poorly and the basic drive pushbots did well. There was little design inspiration as a result of this year's game. I know that will significantly change next year. Also, I have a feeling next year will encourage lifting something to an extreme height. Too many robots had high CG problems and this is a key challenge that needs to be overcome in a tall design.

/me wants stairs in 2004 game.

[Etbitmydog]

I've thought the same thing. From what I know FIRST has never tried stairs. As far as I know the closest to stairs I've ever seen was the puck from 98. That in my oppinion was the best FIRST ever had to offer. The game was complex and there were SOOO many ways people could win and score. I want to see that same complexity again. Everybody had a chance and everybody seemed to have something REALLY REALLY cool to show. Now all i see is really low robots. They all look the same to me. They all do the same thing. It's just about as bad as the 2001 competion of 4vs0.

And I definatly do think they're going to try something where the action can be seen up high. I really do agree with the guy above that balls are definatly out. AT LEAST the small ones. They did them for what... 3 years in a row!!! 2000 you had to put them in a a troth, 2001 you put them in a skinny goal, 2002 you put them in a REALLY big goal. I want to see the return of a similar floppy type item. That or something really cool like having to pick the balls out of the air or something.


This year's game seems to have many low robots and rookies seem to do very well by just having a drive going. It's boring. I want to see diversity among robots, not just the same design over and over and over.

[sevisehda]

The whole 4 on 0 thing was kind of dull. Teams didn't really seem excited after a match unless it was a ultra high score. People went to the matches like work. Gave high fives or would shake hands after then leave. The 1 on 1 on 1 had the teaming up problems. The 2 on 2 is traditionally the easiest most reliable format. Some games lend themself to collusion and others don't.

Its true the veteran teams can manipulate a ball in there sleep but rookie teams don't have the experience. So the game always has to be relatively simple. I'm waiting for a game in whcih the field is the game. 2001 had a sample with the bridge.

Stairs would be fun but teams with less resources would have a huge disadvantage. Year to year the game has to be simple for the new teams but different from the previous years to throw of the old teams.


Actual game ideas.

Instead of a flat top to the hill have one of those flexable bridges they have on playgrounds.

To go from side to side teams would have to go through an airlock where they'd have to pull 1 lever to open the first gate. Then go in let the first gate close then pull another lever to unlock a second gate. Only 1 gate could open at a time.

A six basket ferris wheel teams would have to place a ball/box in each basket to score.

More jungle gym things, a set of horizontal bars 6 ft above the field. Teams would have to swing across in order to get over a moat.

Instead of an actual moat have a marker area that would identify one. If you entered it you would be disabled for a period of time.

My dream game. Since we're at reliant stadium we'll use the football field. But the bots will need to be bigger so max dimensions are 8ft x 12ft x 12ft. The crates can be 6ft x 6ft x 6ft plywood boxes(similar to most teams crates). Rules are the same as this years game. The kit of parts include an old pickup truck.

[Cory]

Originally posted by Etbitmydog
I've thought the same thing. From what I know FIRST has never tried stairs. As far as I know the closest to stairs I've ever seen was the puck from 98.

The puck was from 1999

Cory

[Ian W.]

Originally posted by sevisehda
My dream game. Since we're at reliant stadium we'll use the football field. But the bots will need to be bigger so max dimensions are 8ft x 12ft x 12ft. The crates can be 6ft x 6ft x 6ft plywood boxes(similar to most teams crates). Rules are the same as this years game. The kit of parts include an old pickup truck.

only problem with this is that me and my friend can't lift that robot and carry it through a standard size door. that's the only reason we have a limit on weight/size of robots. that, and the fact that bigger stuff costs more, specifically more money that many teams don't have as is. of course, nothing's stopping you from turning an old pickup into a robot...

i agree with the general idea that this year's game was, well, dull. i know there's gotta be something more interesting, such as the puck and the bridge (i wasn't in FIRST then, but i've seen movies/heard stories). i mean, yes, the ramp was interesting this year, but way too overvalued. that's the other problem. points must be given fairly. if a ball in a goal is one point, don't make that goal worth 100 points if it's in a certain place. otherwise, teams ignore the low points. hence, this year, we had almost no stacks.

[sevisehda]

If the spirit of the rule was to get the bot through the door, you could just drive an S10 through it. Plus that was my dream game, and I wasn't being serious.

[EvanG]

As for the game format, i think something unique should be tried. At this time, i'm not as clever as Dean and his gang when it comes to game making, but i have a couple ideas. Perhaps a 4 vs. 2 idea, in which 4 people are on the offense, and 2 on the defense. Half of your 8 games will be on either side. Or perhaps 3 vs 3.

Next year, something interesting i'd like to perhaps see, is instead only starting in auton mode, why not end in it? You can have your robot navigate to a position and or put itself in a position. The flaw to this is for rookies and for us programmers who had a hard enough time as it was. Plus, teams that used the sensors this year would likely have an advantage.

[kristen]

Wow, ending in auto mode would probably be really complicated. I think that it would be interesting to see 3 vs. 3 robots, though. I think that this years game has potential, but knocking down stacks was just so easy to do that stacking was sometimes not worth attempting. It ended up being a bulldozing game this year. I think that whatever the game is next year, it should be thought out so that the game doesn't turn repetious like this years.

[DanL]

Originally posted by EvanG
Next year, something interesting i'd like to perhaps see, is instead only starting in auton mode, why not end in it? You can have your robot navigate to a position and or put itself in a position. The flaw to this is for rookies and for us programmers who had a hard enough time as it was. Plus, teams that used the sensors this year would likely have an advantage.

meh... I'm not sure there would be a point to this... I mean, if you had to accomplish a certain task in the game, then why not just do it before the game ends? Like if the point was to end in a certain spot, I'd just navigate there before the game was over and sit there. Sure, if it was something like king of the hill, you COULD have an autonamous battle for the hill, but I think more often than not, the strategy would be to get there before the auto mode begins and activate the sit-and-brake auto program.

Not to mention that with the amount of inaccuracy (and failures) invovled with auto programs, ending the match in auto would often be anticlimatic.

The fun of auto mode this year is that rather than it being the deciding factor of the match, it was what gave people a little extra umph - even if you had a crummy auto program, you could still win.

My two cents.