2013 Game?

[2185Bilal]

Sorry im pretty new to CD, would someone tell me how to post thing in CD. PLZ
Sorry but i really some help

[Walter Deitzler]

Originally Posted by 2185Bilal

Sorry im pretty new to CD, would someone tell me how to post thing in CD. PLZ
Sorry but i really some help

Just log in and click "Post Replay", like you did to post this post...
Or of you need to start a thread, go to forums, find the appropriate forum, and click "start new thread"

There were threads labeled "please read before you post" that were given to you after your account was started. They contained all the needed information.

Hope this helps!

Now, about the game...

What about a game where you have to stack crates/buckets/tetras on other robots! Then the robots would have to go to a protected corner zone, and, at the end game, raise the crates/buckets/tetras to gain points!

[KrazyCarl92]

Originally Posted by Tetraman

Every year someone posts game piece trends to figure out what the next year's trend will be. If there is a common trend, it is this:

2012: Basketball (Sport)
2011: Scoring tubes (Nonsport)
2010: Soccer (Sport)
2009: Antigravity (Nonsport)
2008: Racing (Sport)
2007: Scoring tubes (Nonsport)
2006: Vauge Basketball (Sport)
2005: Tic Tac Toe (nonsport)
2004: Track&Field (Sport)
2003: Stack Attack (nonsport)

So if that rings true, then next year will be a non-sport, one of those abstract games with an abstract theme.

Even more to the point, the trend seems to be alternating ball years and non-ball years:

2012: Balls
2011: Tubes
2010: Balls
2009: Moon Rocks (weren't really balls, but everyone treated them like balls)
2008: Balls
2007: Tubes
2006: Balls
2005: Tetras
2004: Balls
2003: Crates
2002: Balls
2001: Balls (Here's where they double up and the trend doesn't really work)
2000: Balls
1999: Floppy things
1998: Balls
1997: Tubes
1992-1996: Balls

Since 1996, there has only been one year which hasn't followed this trend (unless you consider 2009), and that game was in 2001, the oddest of them all with moving goals, 4 teams working together, and stopping the clock early by balancing the bridge.

I'd bet on a non-ball game piece in 2013, whatever it may be.

[lorem3k]

One thing I'd like to see in the future is a game that puts more emphasis on vision targets. We've always had them since we got the new control system, and most top-tier teams have usually used them, but it's never really been "required" to do well. It'd be great to get some teams who haven't bothered with it in the past to learn how to handle vision processing.

[bduddy]

Originally Posted by lorem3k

One thing I'd like to see in the future is a game that puts more emphasis on vision targets. We've always had them since we got the new control system, and most top-tier teams have usually used them, but it's never really been "required" to do well. It'd be great to get some teams who haven't bothered with it in the past to learn how to handle vision processing.

In the past it seemed like no matter how important or "easy" vision tracking was, most teams wouldn't be able to do it. It seems like the changes they've made lately have helped that, though... even at the (relatively weak overall) St. Louis Regional I saw most teams making at least some attempt at it. Maybe they can try something randomized again...

Originally Posted by lorem3k

One thing I'd like to see in the future is a game that puts more emphasis on vision targets. We've always had them since we got the new control system, and most top-tier teams have usually used them, but it's never really been "required" to do well. It'd be great to get some teams who haven't bothered with it in the past to learn how to handle vision processing.

I think as vision targeting becomes more integrated into the game, and more teams learn how to do it, FIRST will start implementing new methods of play into the game. They've taught the culture to make robots, make/use some of the latest vision-targeting software, which engineers around the world are still playing with, and soon they'll try and teach us something new.

Unfortunately, I'm stating to think that "something new" is somehow connected with the Kinect. I think we'll be seeing it a lot in the future, but it's application in the games is still open for interpretation. It has more than 1 built in sensor, so maybe it will become a sensor hub for future FRC robots.

tl;dr: My prediction is that FIRST will introduce a new concept of play next year.

[avanboekel]

I anticipate that next year, there will be larger game pieces where handling the sheer mass or size of them will be a challenge. The last 4 years, we have had relatively small and or light game pieces.

2012 ball: less than a pound
2011 tube: less than a pound
2010 ball: less than a pound
2009 rock: less than a pound
2008 ball: heavy.

In short, if the game follows trends, it will be a
-non ball
-heavy game piece
-non sport game.

[bduddy]

Originally Posted by avanboekel

I anticipate that next year, there will be larger game pieces where handling the sheer mass or size of them will be a challenge. The last 4 years, we have had relatively small and or light game pieces.

2012 ball: less than a pound
2011 tube: less than a pound
2010 ball: less than a pound
2009 rock: less than a pound
2008 ball: heavy.

In short, if the game follows trends, it will be a
-heavy game piece

That's not a trend. A trend would be saying that large game pieces have been used in:

2008 (trackballs)
2005 (tetras)
2004 (30" balls, for capping)
2003 (storage bins)
2001 (30" balls, for capping)
etc.

Not really much to base a prediction on...

[Nemo]

This post got me thinking about having two games played in every match. If each game was worth 2 QP, that could force interesting design decisions and game strategy decisions. For it to work, both games would need to require a relevant investment, both in terms of match time and robot capabilities.

Or the endgame could simply be worth 2 QP instead of 2 CP or xyz points. (forget about minibots - that would be awful with QP's) What if the 2009 Lunacy endgame awarded QP? If a supercell was worth 1 QP instead of 15 points, that might have been pretty interesting. That forces you to decide if it's worth the effort of doing the empty cell setup routine or if you need to focus all of your time on winning the match.

Other thoughts: what if the highest stack was worth a separate 2 QP in 2003? What if scoring the most balls was worth a separate 2 QP in 2002? That would have changed those games a lot.

[ZipTie3182]

Originally Posted by Nemo

This post got me thinking about having two games played in every match. If each game was worth 2 QP, that could force interesting design decisions and game strategy decisions. For it to work, both games would need to require a relevant investment, both in terms of match time and robot capabilities.

Or the endgame could simply be worth 2 QP instead of 2 CP or xyz points. (forget about minibots - that would be awful with QP's) What if the 2009 Lunacy endgame awarded QP? If a supercell was worth 1 QP instead of 15 points, that might have been pretty interesting. That forces you to decide if it's worth the effort of doing the empty cell setup routine or if you need to focus all of your time on winning the match.

Other thoughts: what if the highest stack was worth a separate 2 QP in 2003? What if scoring the most balls was worth a separate 2 QP in 2002? That would have changed those games a lot.

I think it's an interesting concept to have the "two games" in every match. I think this is what makes a game interesting since it causes design trade offs. It didn't as much as it could this year but it years like 2010 where you had the tunnel and the hanging bar. Most teams did not both hang and go under the tunnel. Or like in 2004 where they was a million ways to score.

I like this because it causes teams to come up with different designs unlike this year where all robots that scored pretty much looked the same. Design trade offs also make it more difficult for powerhouses to really do it all, or at least need their alliance partners a little more.

I think it's really important that Rookies be able to find their niche in a game, as well as allow for multiple veteran strategies. It's no fun if all robots do the same thing because then teams that don't have as much experiences (or resources) have a really hard time building a competitive robot.

And I know I'll probably get a lot of backlash for saying this, but I LIKED the Co-op points this year. It allowed my team to advance a little father than we would have otherwise, which definitely induced A LOT of inspiration afterwards. I've never seen many of the girls on my team so euphoric about engineering or robotics. It was a great thing for my team, and Co-op really achieved what FIRST meant it to, even if some very skilled robots got displaced from winning.

-Anna

[Ravage457]

I wonder if it gonna be another stacking game like in 2007, and a combination of previous games that we havent seen in a while

[hiyou102]

Water, stacking, FIRST Frenzy, anyone?

[Ekcrbe]

Originally Posted by Ravage457

I wonder if it gonna be another stacking game like in 2007, and a combination of previous games that we havent seen in a while

2007 was a tube game, but 2003 and 2005 are the stacking games most often referred to.

[brennonbrimhall]

I think that FIRST is definitely on a trend towards games more accessible to the public, or that highlights the organization in some way. Personally, I'm hoping for hockey. I don't foresee Coopertition going away. My guess is that it will return again in some form.

In terms of game technology, I agree with everything that's been already been stated. I really think that next year, there will be even more of an incentive to use the Kinect.

Lastly, it seems to me that the bottom line for any game we get is how it impacts the FMS and other Volunteers.

[Savvy578]

My thought is that, next year, using the Kinect will give a bonus, either to the match score or rankings.