2012 Game?

[Grim Tuesday]

Something that would be interesting is:

-No Human Player

-Human Player is a robocoach once again (2008), however, they control the minibot. The minibot and robot perform seperate and distinct tasks, until the endgame, where they have to meet, and performs some sort of transfer.

idk, would be interesting, and would support the stated goals of the minibot returning, and making it more interesting throughout the entire match (unstated goal).

[CalTran]

Originally Posted by Grim Tuesday

Something that would be interesting is:
-Human Player is a robocoach once again (2008), however, they control the minibot.

That would be quite interesting. What would the control system be for that? Would it be something as simple as a VEX Signal Splitter and RC controller or something on par with the wireless controls of the FRC bots? Either way, that would make for quite interesting competition.

PS That seems like Inception Robotics. Mini-robotics competition within a match of a FRC competition... =D

[Brandon Zalinsky]

Originally Posted by DSM33

and the humans and robots were the pins
i feel like adding oil to the playing field would end in disaster. like regolith but way, waaaaaaaaaaay worse

the first year that there ISN'T a competition for human player.

[JosephC]

Originally Posted by CalTran

PS That seems like Inception Robotics. Mini-robotics competition within a match of a FRC competition... =D

Sounds like OCCRA, we have a separate field for tiny little VEX robots. In retrospect this is probably a good thing, considering the "big bots" weigh 10x more and go 10x faster

[KevinGoneNuts]

Originally Posted by Grim Tuesday

Something that would be interesting is:

-No Human Player

-Human Player is a robocoach once again (2008), however, they control the minibot. The minibot and robot perform seperate and distinct tasks, until the endgame, where they have to meet, and performs some sort of transfer.

idk, would be interesting, and would support the stated goals of the minibot returning, and making it more interesting throughout the entire match (unstated goal).

What if there was a FTC sized field in the middle of the FRC field and the minibots had to do some task like inside the field?

[Robert Cawthon]

Originally Posted by KevinGoneNuts

What if there was a FTC sized field in the middle of the FRC field and the minibots had to do some task like inside the field?

Or two smaller fields, one at each end of the FRC field? Make it easier for the "mini-bot driver" to see whats going on and it would leave the middle of the FRC field open for the big bots.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Robert Cawthon

Or two smaller fields, one at each end of the FRC field? Make it easier for the "mini-bot driver" to see whats going on and it would leave the middle of the FRC field open for the big bots.

Or put your minibot field on the other side of the main field ... and let the teams figure out how to see their minibots.

I would forsee some inventive uses for a robots onboard camera

[Brandon Zalinsky]

In all seriousness, I think the minibots should be relegated to simple tasks. Logomotion was a bad enough spectator game as it was, more complication with minibots would just make it worse. Breakaway was a great spectator game, and it (obviously) did not include minibots. It was a great spectator game not necessarily because of the lack of minibots, but for the lack of complication. It was, quite simply, soccer with robots! A person could walk into a regional and immediately understand what was happening. Logomotion, not so much.

[Zuelu562]

Originally Posted by Flak-Bait

(Breakaway) was a great spectator game not necessarily because of the lack of minibots, but for the lack of complication.

I think that's the direction the GDC kind of wants to go from the hints they dropped earlier in the year right after Champs. Instead of finishing the current year game less than weeks before kickoff, they may or may not have games planned out years ahead, and something tells me part of this is due simplifying the game. I don't remember any exact quotes, but I remember reading something to that effect.

If you make the concept simple so that spectators (and by extension, new team members) can understand the game with one phrase (I distinctly remember saying "robot soccer" during the 2010 build season over 9000 times), but make the intricacies of the actual gameplay interesting, I believe that's the secret to a successful FRC game.

[dadakota]

Originally Posted by Karibou

There's always Bill's Blog...anyone up for Haagen-Dazs?

Edit: Eric is sneaky. My Haagen-Dazs comment still stands.

How would one get to bills blog?

[HannahF]

Originally Posted by dadakota

How would one get to bills blog?

This is Bill's Blog. It is a great source of information from the Director of FRC, Bill Miller. He usually updates it at least once a week with things that are happening with FRC, especially game design (like unoffical game hints).

Someone will also usually post a thread on chiefdelphi with the notation [BB] at the beginning for Bill's blog, about important blog entries such as this , so you can often find the information here if you do not remember the blog's url or just find it easier to check chiefdelphi.

~Hannah

[Pamelot2067]

Has anyone else looked into Mayan games? Look at Pok-a-tok.

It was a combination of Soccer, Basketball, Racquetball, and Volleyball. It was played with a six inch rubber ball and a hoop which was placed vertically, could barely fit the ball in it and was placed twenty to thirty feet above the ground. The object was not only to get the ball in the hoop but to also keep the ball in motion. They did this with any part of their body except their hands.

Remember they have already finish this years game. and are already working on 2013. considering that they always base the game off of somthing signifigant for the corresponding year, isnt 2012 a theoetical end of world senario a big enough deal to be the theme? just sayin, give it some thought.

Pam And Trevor from Apple Pi Robotics 2067

[Taylor]

Originally Posted by Pamelot2067

considering that they always base the game off of somthing signifigant for the corresponding year

Where did you get this information? It only holds true for 2009, 2010, and 2011. It's certainly a recent trend, but I wouldn't say always. That's the same reasoning that leads us into the circle-triangle-square gamepiece cycle that really doesn't exist.

[thefro526]

Originally Posted by Zuelu562

I think that's the direction the GDC kind of wants to go from the hints they dropped earlier in the year right after Champs. Instead of finishing the current year game less than weeks before kickoff, they may or may not have games planned out years ahead, and something tells me part of this is due simplifying the game. I don't remember any exact quotes, but I remember reading something to that effect.

My understanding of this was that the GDC was hoping to finish the games a year early so that they had a year to work out the kinks of the game. In a perfect world, this would lead to more available game pieces (gives enough time to create an appropriate supply chain), a better rule book (you really shouldn't need to send an update out a week after kick-off), and a more spectator friendly game.

[mesamb1]

Originally Posted by Taylor

Where did you get this information? It only holds true for 2009, 2010, and 2011. It's certainly a recent trend, but I wouldn't say always. That's the same reasoning that leads us into the circle-triangle-square gamepiece cycle that really doesn't exist.

Just like the balls every other year cycle?

You can add 2008 to that year list(nascar), but I think that the idea it will relate to an event for that year connects to being able to explain it to non-FIRSTers(based on earlier post). A game based on soccer or traversing the moon is far simpler to explain to people then for example Rack-n-Roll where the whole ramp, moving rack, spoilers, and vertically and horizontally aligned game pieces made the game more difficult to explain to an outsider what they were seeing.