2013 Game?

[Ekcrbe]

What about immovable on-field structures? (This does not include those attached to the alliance walls) There have been:

2012: Bump and Bridges
2011: Minibot Poles
2010: Bumps, Tunnels, and Overhead Bars
2009: Open
2008: Dividing Wall and Overhead Racks
2007: Scoring Tower
2006: Open
2005: Goals
2004: Stationary Goals, Steps and Bar
2003: Enourmous Ramp and Platform
2002: Open
Sorry for the poor terminology.

I think we might be due for an open field.
Other trends (as already mentioned) include non-ball pieces and a non-sport theme.

[Jenn Feathers]

Originally Posted by PAR_WIG1350

The human players are in charge of operating the water cannons.

Alright!!

[PAR_WIG1350]

Originally Posted by Ekcrbe

What about immovable on-field structures? (This does not include those attached to the alliance walls) There have been:

2012: Bump and Bridges
2011: Minibot Poles
2010: Bumps, Tunnels, and Overhead Bars
2009: Open
2008: Dividing Wall and Overhead Racks
2007: Scoring Tower
2006: Open
2005: Goals
2004: Stationary Goals, Steps and Bar
2003: Enourmous Ramp and Platform
2002: Open
Sorry for the poor terminology.

I think we might be due for an open field.
Other trends (as already mentioned) include non-ball pieces and a non-sport theme.

2006 had ramps and 2009 had rigolith, which was flat, but it was an immobile field element, and depending on your perspective, it could even be called a structure.

[Ekcrbe]

Originally Posted by PAR_WIG1350

2006 had ramps and 2009 had rigolith, which was flat, but it was an immobile field element, and depending on your perspective, it could even be called a structure.

I know 2006 had ramps but they were at the end of the field, not out in the open.

It's a small stretch.

[Ninja_Bait]

Has anyone said crates yet? I think crates.

[jon-s]

Originally Posted by lorem3k

It would be pretty interesting to do a field with a non-uniform surface like sand or gravel... or water

How about a surface with lots of bumps (may be too hard to implement) or obstacles (like the minibot pole bases)?

[sebflippers]

As a programmer I would love to see more autonomous time next game. Maybe 30 seconds?

[brennonbrimhall]

Originally Posted by jon-s

How about a surface with lots of bumps (may be too hard to implement) or obstacles (like the minibot pole bases)?

I think more of an open field would be really great – the perfect course for the most agile, most maneuverable, and most drivable robot is what I'm hoping for.

Originally Posted by sebflippers

As a programmer I would love to see more autonomous time next game. Maybe 30 seconds?

That's true. Maybe a little more...maybe even 100% autonomous! Who's with me?

Back to reality, it would be really cool to have a longer autonomous if we continued the point distribution of this year, where autonomous, teleop, and the endgame really were worth equal points. That's one aspect of the game this year that I would definitely like to keep.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by brennonbrimhall

That's true. Maybe a little more...maybe even 100% autonomous! Who's with me?

I think you're alone on that one. I'd estimate 5% of the teams could pull that off now, 15% could figure it out during a build season, and the other 80% would fail.

One thing that might not be awful (in the right game) is the option for teams to select the duration of their autonomy, in exchange for points or multipliers on their scoring during the autonomous period.¹ You could have them pre-select the duration, and/or have a button (like the e-stop, but not as conspicuous) that switches control back to the driver (or even back to autonomous thereafter).

¹ This probably would work best in a game where individual robots' scoring can be distinguished somehow. Maybe a region of the field where only autonomous robots can go; maybe individualized goals or scoring objects.

[jon-s]

Originally Posted by sebflippers

As a programmer I would love to see more autonomous time next game. Maybe 30 seconds?

the short autonomous period is the one thing I like less about frc than fll (fully autonomous). on the other hand, it would be a big game-changer.

I think style points would be an interesting addition to any game. If you can complete an in-game task in a unique way, you should get points (or maybe an award given to the team with the most in-competition points). Examples of such are special triple balancers such as Robonauts and Children of the Swamp. Or the teams that hung from the poles in 2010 (Cheesy Poofs, Simbotics, etc).

tl;dr: I think points should be awarded to a team that most uniquely and effectively pulls of a given task of the game.

[avanboekel]

I think that 15 seconds is the perfect time for autonomous. It's just enough time for teams to do some really cool things with it (2-3 tubes last year, tipping the bridge this year). Any longer would make it less interesting for the crowd to watch.

[Walter Deitzler]

Originally Posted by avanboekel

I think that 15 seconds is the perfect time for autonomous. It's just enough time for teams to do some really cool things with it (2-3 tubes last year, tipping the bridge this year). Any longer would make it less interesting for the crowd to watch.

What if there was more to do in Autonomous. Instead of one task to be performed, there were many possible tasks? This would make autonomous pretty interesting and fun to watch.

[Robogineer1649]

I want First to add multiple aspects to the game like FTC games because they have many different ways of scoring or winning a match in FRC it is defense or offense. This year we only had two ways to score points while FTC had three or four different ways to score points.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by LedLover96

What if there was more to do in Autonomous. Instead of one task to be performed, there were many possible tasks? This would make autonomous pretty interesting and fun to watch.

Except that most of the teams now cannot make it interesting or fun to watch. (Remember, there are 2,343 teams in FRC this year...how many autonomous modes make you go "wow"?)

Most teams struggle with the basics now--just look at the Hybrid OPRs. FRC is primarily teleop because autonomous--especially fully autonomous--programming at this level just doesn't look as interesting or work as well. FLL isn't an interactive head-to-head sport; FRC is (I think because, well, it's high school).


I'd appreciate more ways to score as well, though I think the reason FRC has shied away from it is to make the games more spectator-friendly. How many sports have 3-4 ways to score?