Alternative endgame (from BB)

[bduddy]

At one point during the development of LOGO MOTION we considered an entirely different end game. Instead of giving the first mini-bot up the pole 30 points, then giving 20 points to the second bot and so on, we discussed the idea of awarding precision instead. The mini-bot who touched the top at the last possible moment before the buzzer sounded would receive the highest score, the second to last bot to score before the end would receive the next highest score and so on backwards to the lowest score. We pictured tense moments at the end of each match while minibots clung to the poles playing chicken, each daring the other to go first.

You know now that we didn’t go with that design, but at one point, we considered sharing both endings at kickoff and asking teams to vote for their favorite. We didn’t go with this idea in the end, but that may not be the end of that idea. We may still invite teams to help us pick elements of a game sometime in the future.

I thought this deserved a thread. Thoughts? I personally think this would have been a much better idea, encouraging precision instead of this expensive, penalty-filled, centralizing race to the top...

[sgreco]

That's interesting. I like it, but at the same time it would be really frustrating to lose a match simply because you didn't wait long enough (or waited too long until the match was over).

On another note, my honest opinion of the mini-bot is that it is worth too many points. If it was 18, 14, 10, 6 I think it would be perfect. The problem with the minibots is not when they are going up, it's that the point value is too influential on matches that should be decided by other things that aren't as subject to chance (not that a good minibot is chance, but when two sub-1 second minibots face each other, whoever gets up first is essentially a coin toss.)

[rmhooks573]

hahah, A minibot game of chicken. that deffintley seems FIRST worthy to me. haha, i would love that to happen at IRI

[Joe G.]

I love the idea of community input on the game at kickoff. For a few years now, I've been throwing out the idea of a team-customizable or team-supplied element of the playing field, to mirror the real-world part of engineering in which engineers can alter their challenge to some extent, by selecting a safer landing site on mars, adding a temporary tab to a product to aid in manufacturing, and so on. The idea of a community vote on an element of the game, while not as personalized as my proposal, captures this spirit.

I would not have been a fan, however, of the proposed alternate end game. It would have removed the purest challenge in efficiency and optimization that FIRST has ever given us, and added a greater element of luck to the endgame.

[Chris is me]

I think that endgame would result in a lot less blown Tetrix motors!

I would probably use the NXT and an ultrasonic sensor to detect proximity from the tower switch.

[Trent B]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

I think that endgame would result in a lot less blown Tetrix motors!

I would probably use the NXT and an ultrasonic sensor to detect proximity from the tower switch.

I agree, it would probably diversify the robots quite a bit. If the switch needed a similar force to switch some times might use a limit switch to touch the top, and then wait and push up when the time comes.

[FRC4ME]

That would have made races much, much closer. Which would have sucked during week one, when the automated scoring sensors weren't working.

Not to mention the bots would be hitting the sensors with much less force. Differentiating such a tiny minibot impact from a robot running into the base of the tower would be nearly impossible. Unless GDC was stricter about the triggering requirements - e.g. minibots must contact both halves of the disk with a conductive medium. That would be easy to detect.

I like the idea, but I think this one is infeasible for technical reasons.

[dtengineering]

An interesting idea for the endgame... but technologically difficult to implement as far as measuring who hit last.

The top teams would have built the NXT controller into their minibot and synched the time on the minibot to the game clock. The minibot would slowly climb the tower, sense proximity to the top and wait for the clock to count down before tapping the switch.

Rather than having four minibots hit within tenths of a second, you could easily have had four minibots hit within hundredths of a second. Not difficult to time with optical sensors, perhaps, but minute variations in the construction of the touch pads could have significantly affected the outcome in the top matches.

I'll give the GDC credit for choosing the best option... and for contemplating that where two alternatives are possible that it would be a fun change up to have a vote.

Jason

Don't click on those links above.

[Josh Fox]

Reported.


Also, that would have been a very interesting challenge. Not nearly as exciting I'm sure, but obviously and incredibly different dynamic than the current endgame.

[Lil' Lavery]

As a couple others have alluded to, we'd actually see minibots that use the NXT controller. The minibots would actually be, you know, small robots rather than a motor with a battery and an off-switch. Much less emphasis on the "spec racing" aspect and a lot more on controls. Would have been a completely different challenge.