2013 Game Hint!

[karomata]

Originally Posted by Savvy578

On that note, have you noticed a small trend? It seems like some of the games are being traded between FTC and FRC. This year, the FTC game is very similar to 2011 and the FTC game from 2010-2011 had the bridge elements that FRC had last year. It is quite possible that the bowling idea will also be crossed over.

The FTC Game is also similar in that this year the FTC "theme" is mars rover, similar to 2009's FRC game Lunacy. People have been saying that they see an alternating pattern between sports then FIRST creations in FRC games. This is a very recent trend and I believe that FIRST will break it as to prevent people from thinking that. And this trend is very young, 2002, 03, 04, 05, 06, and even 07 were all FIRST creations, not anything like sports. I don't find it safe to assume that the pattern is intentional.

[MARS_James]

Originally Posted by karomata

And this trend is very young, 2002, 03, 04, 05, 06, and even 07 were all FIRST creations, not anything like sports. I don't find it safe to assume that the pattern is intentional.

I have to ask how is 2006 not a sport? it more closely resembles the play style of basketball (offence defense swap) then this year.......

[karomata]

Originally Posted by MARS_James

I have to ask how is 2006 not a sport? it more closely resembles the play style of basketball (offence defense swap) then this year.......

Well I usually think of basketball as shooting balls through a hoop on a horizontal plane, as opposed to vertical. Because of this, and with the fact that there are no well known sports involving vertical hoops, I consider the pattern to have continued through the 2006 year. If you really wanted to be argumental, I am sure that there is a sport somewhat related to every FRC game, I am sure that somewhere somebody has made a game out of knocking down and stacking back up boxes.

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by karomata

Well I usually think of basketball as shooting balls through a hoop on a horizontal plane, as opposed to vertical. Because of this, and with the fact that there are no well known sports involving vertical hoops, I consider the pattern to have continued through the 2006 year. If you really wanted to be argumental, I am sure that there is a sport somewhat related to every FRC game, I am sure that somewhere somebody has made a game out of knocking down and stacking back up boxes.

Look up the Mayan Ball Game... It was the first organized sport in known history, and had vertical hoops (although I believe these were added relatively late in the game's history)!

[Mark McLeod]

Does quidditch count?

[Siri]

Originally Posted by Mark McLeod

Does quidditch count?

Mark's figured out next year's game!



Yeah, I know, but wouldn't it be awesome?

[karomata]

Regardless, I still stand my ground on the philosophy that the meaning of this clue is that matches will be 3 minutes long. It would be a very subtle hint about the game that does not give away so much that teams can begin thinking about strategies or designs. And seeing that this year could possibly be a year where FIRST wanted to have strategies have a large impact on match outcomes, if matches were 3 minutes, it would allow time for more complex and developed strategies. We would all also have less matches, making it important to utilize any strategies teams can because it is important that they try to win as many of their matches that they can because there are so few. All that is needed is a coopertition system or a new kind of qualification scoring system that makes it so that when you lose a match, you have a chance of coming back from that loss.

[dcarr]

Originally Posted by karomata

Regardless, I still stand my ground on the philosophy that the meaning of this clue is that matches will be 3 minutes long. It would be a very subtle hint about the game that does not give away so much that teams can begin thinking about strategies or designs. And seeing that this year could possibly be a year where FIRST wanted to have strategies have a large impact on match outcomes, if matches were 3 minutes, it would allow time for more complex and developed strategies. We would all also have less matches, making it important to utilize any strategies teams can because it is important that they try to win as many of their matches that they can because there are so few. All that is needed is a coopertition system or a new kind of qualification scoring system that makes it so that when you lose a match, you have a chance of coming back from that loss.

This seems very likely - the chances of the GDC "accidentally" posting a screenshot from precisely the 3:00 mark without it meaning something seem very small.

With longer matches, a fewer number of them seems like a given (unless they can miraculously speed up the queuing, loading, unloading processes considerably, which seems unlikely given that many events struggle to stay on schedule as it is). Less matches seems like a bad thing at face value. Less time to recover if something goes wrong. But strategy would become more important than ever.

[karomata]

Originally Posted by dcarr

This seems very likely - the chances of the GDC "accidentally" posting a screenshot from precisely the 3:00 mark without it meaning something seem very small.

With longer matches, a fewer number of them seems like a given (unless they can miraculously speed up the queuing, loading, unloading processes considerably, which seems unlikely given that many events struggle to stay on schedule as it is). Less matches seems like a bad thing at face value. Less time to recover if something goes wrong. But strategy would become more important than ever.

I have estimated that if matches are 3 minutes, teams will have approx. 5 matches at Championships, assuming that there are 3 robots per alliance and the divisions are about the same size as last year (100 teams per division).

[bduddy]

When I was thinking of game ideas, the first thing I thought of was "How can you have a longer game without decreasing the number of games?" The answer is simple - more robots on the field. Assuming a fixed 4 minutes between games, a 4 minute 4v4 game gets teams as many games as a 2 minute 3v3 game. Of course more robots on the field may increase the downtime as well, but it's certainly an idea... and hey, wasn't everyone talking about the 4 pushpins like 100 posts ago?

[karomata]

Originally Posted by bduddy

When I was thinking of game ideas, the first thing I thought of was "How can you have a longer game without decreasing the number of games?" The answer is simple - more robots on the field. Assuming a fixed 4 minutes between games, a 4 minute 4v4 game gets teams as many games as a 2 minute 3v3 game. Of course more robots on the field may increase the downtime as well, but it's certainly an idea... and hey, wasn't everyone talking about the 4 pushpins like 100 posts ago?

Every year we keep saying that this is the year where they have 4 robots. I am not sure that 3 minute match would qualify as a reason to have 4 robots, FIRST would have to completely re structure the picking procedure, match schedules, etc. And when you think about it, 8 robots on the field is a lot, with 6 it is already cramped. If they were to have 8 robots on the field, without making the field larger, the game would probably have to be a challenge that does not require precision.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by karomata

If they were to have 8 robots on the field, without making the field larger, the game would probably have to be a challenge that does not require precision.

The robots could be made smaller.

[ksc1073]

1073 had a brainstorming session at the end of our last meeting; here's what we came up with:

Robots could be required to utilize sound in some way, since this picture is musically related.
It could be some sort of keepaway game, since we're "never gonna give it up."
We might not be giving up an old game and returning to it.
Pushpins could either signify the addition of another alliance (due to the yellow pins) or that we have to start and end matches on the corners of the field.
Since Astley was dancing at this point in the video, the game could rely on the Kinect.
And hey, it could even be a flying game this year! ("Never gonna let you down")

Also, one of our past team leads was interviewed for a FIRST scholarship video. She asked the guy for a game hint, and he sort of gave her one: it's going to be played on a field! Does this mean no water game?

[CalTran]

http://www.vexrobotics.com/vexpro/ge...reduction.html

Now why would VEXPro, especially after their pledge to FIRST Robotics, release a gearbox that is compatible with 3 CIM motors? When has a team ever used 3 CIMs on one side? Could the be a subtle hint?

[dcarr]

Originally Posted by CalTran

http://www.vexrobotics.com/vexpro/ge...reduction.html

Now why would VEXPro, especially after their pledge to FIRST Robotics, release a gearbox that is compatible with 3 CIM motors? When has a team ever used 3 CIMs on one side? Could the be a subtle hint?

You might really be on to something. Cue some ridiculously powerful drivetrains in 2013...