|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
| Thread Tools |
Rating:
|
Display Modes |
|
#76
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 2013 Game?
I'd really like to see another game where there are multiple ways of scoring (2008), or maybe even multiple ways of scoring with the same game piece (2006: in the hoop, or in the lower scoring area). Something that can bring back the niche robot. Sounds pretty interesting.
|
|
#77
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 2013 Game?
Correct me if I am wrong...
but i don't remember a game where in robot assembly was required. For example picking up a blue cube and a red cube, and putting them together inside the robot perimeter and then putting those somewhere. Teams could use the kinect to help put the pieces together and automate assembly. Kind of like Wall-E pushing the stuff inside of his body chamber and then creating the trash cube. That is what i hope is part of the game for next year. |
|
#78
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 2013 Game?
WELL,
We've had soccer, basketball and car racing. Time for volleyball. |
|
#79
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 2013 Game?
I've got 2 suggestions
1) rectangular boxes about 1' high by 2' long by 1' wide that weight about 25 lbs. Robots have to pickup boxes and stack them in one of 2 sectors of the field,(which is flat), these being a protected area on you side of the field, and the other being anywhere else, where stacks can be dismantled by opponents. the scoring per stacked box is different for the sectors. possible endgame, there are 2 ramps, you get more points if you drive onto crates stacked next to the ramps, the scoring going something like 5x the number of crates high you are. ex. 3 feet high, 15 points per robot. 2) field filled with tiny balls, like the size of ping pong balls. mixed in, with something like a ratio of 20:1, are some other larger balls like racquette balls. at each end of the field is a stepped series of 3 platforms each perhaps 8 inches high and each with a bin on it. these correspond to 1, 2, or 3 points. the thing is, only the RB's actually score points. teams, therefore need to choose between dumping huge volumes of balls quickly and filling the bins inefficiently and dumping RB's only/mostly and more slowly filling the bins but scoring more points. I don't know what the endgame would be yet. |
|
#80
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 2013 Game?
I'm the man at Skee Ball - just ask anybody at your local Chuck-e-Cheese. I like this idea, but I think having a ball-feeding minibot that can choose the right color of balls (esp. if it's a Tetrix-based bot, which is what 2011 was originally supposed to be) is a bit much.
Quote:
|
|
#81
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 2013 Game?
the penalty would be that the bins wouldn't be very big, so by just dumping, you would be lessening you ability to score later and sacrificing number of possible points for speed. I think you would see midrate teams who just picked up 200 balls at a time and dumped them and highrate teams who spent the match trolling for balls and separating them internally via software and light sensors and complicated conveyors, then dumping at the end. I also like it because it opens up a lot of defense strategies, like do you just hold like a 1000 balls so no one else can get them, do you block them from getting to the bins, do you specialize in getting balls out of bins, or do you just do the traditional push them around and annoy them defense.
|
|
#82
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: 2013 Game?
And the controls have a built in delay, so you need to have hybrid control (as was intended in the 2008 game Overdrive) where you give a "high level" command, and the robot executes it sort of autonomously. This will help alleviate the need for full time communication with the robots, too.
|
|
#83
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 2013 Game?
I want to see a game where each of the 3 robots must perform a specific task in order to achieve the game's goals. Each robot can only be ONE of the specialized options. This is gonna make alliance matching and seeds nearly impossible though
|
|
#84
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: 2013 Game?
Quote:
You could herd the small balls around, (and pray that your alliance had a good human player). A few tried to catch and unload them straight from the drops. You could hang from the bar. A half-dozen robots played bar defense as their entire game. Just about everybody had some sort of bar hanger. You could play for the doubler balls. Most robots that did this, though, also went for the small balls. At least one world champion did all three--internal ball hopper, doubler-grabbing arms, and a fast-winching hook for the bar. And, as a strategy nightmare... doubler beats small, hanger beats doubler, small beats hanger. |
|
#85
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 2013 Game?
Quote:
|
|
#86
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 2013 Game?
Although many are looking to past FRC games in order to guess at next years game, I would suggest looking to past FTC games.
The trend started (as close as I can tell) in 2011. It was stated that the minibots were added to encourage cooperation and communication between FRC and FTC teams. We were supposed to use Tetrix components, although many teams ended up just machining their own components. In 2012, the middle of the field was remarkably similar to the FTC "Get Over It!" field (bridges, barrier). I would love to see something similar to the height bonus for the crates in FTC this year. It was the perfect combination of a crowd-pleasing spectacle and a challenge that required technical innovation. For the main game peice, I'm hoping for Tetras like some other mentioned. The 2011-2007,2012-2006,2013-2005 trend might hold like some others are predicting. Stacks would be cool too. Although I doubt this will happen because we just had a throwing game, Frisbees and footballs would be cool game pieces. |
|
#87
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 2013 Game?
I think that we're very likely to (again) see a game that takes significant elements from previous FRC games. Last year took tube hanging directly from 2007, and this year was Aim High's shooting + the mandatory bi-yearly sports theme + the field from 2001. The GDC keeps talking about bringing older games back, partially or wholly, and I don't see them going away from that... Tetras have been oft-discussed, but how about those tube goals that were used in many older games?
EDIT: As EricH says, the field was from 2001, not 2002. Last edited by bduddy : 02-05-2012 at 03:02. |
|
#88
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 2013 Game?
The idea around the game could be something like FIRSTageddon, since we will have just lived through (hopefully) the "end of the world" just a few weeks before. Or it might be something with bad luck since it's 2013, how interesting would that be, a game designed around cards, with different kinds of game pieces like spades, clubs, diamonds, and hearts. Perhaps red alliance vs black alliance and if you were the clack alliance you could only use the spades and clubs and visa versa? That would be reaalllly fun, I WANT TO SEE THIS HAPPEN NOW
![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
#89
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: 2013 Game?
Quote:
That barrier had, in essence, the floor barrier from 2012 with a rail some bit higher (I want to say about a foot and a half), with a single bridge in the middle. Unlike in 2012, however, the bridge did not self-level, though it could be balanced. The 4v0 game was to load small balls into goals, throw a couple large balls on top if you could, balance the goals on the bridge, and stick as many robots on the far end of the field as you could. And do it all as fast as possible. The faster you did it, the more your points were multiplied by. Stacking items and height bonuses: I refer you to 2003 and 1999, respectively. You'll have to look at the FRC games; FTC hadn't been invented yet and the EDUBot was still in its infancy in 2003. FTC is following FRC, not the other way around. |
|
#90
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: 2013 Game?
Please see my earlier post. Main issue: safety
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|