2013 ACTUAL game hint!!!

[skimoose]

Originally Posted by Dad1279

I agree. Large witholding really means no stop build date. Teams can either copy more successful robots, or keep developing a practice bot, and carry in whole mechanisms.

Before witholding (and bumpers) robot designs were more varied.

I would disagree. The reason there are fewer varied designs in FRC now has nothing, or very very little, to do with the withholding allowance rule. The reason for fewer varied designed is the volume of game rules strangling creativity. Thinking outside the box used to be celebrated, now it is often viewed as lawyering the rules.

The GDC has used the rules to force the game to be played as they envisioned it being played. Before the rules strangled creativity, some games were pretty broken by how teams played them. Classic to this was Stack Attack. The GDC viewed this as a tote stacking game, it quickly degenerated into just knock over every stack and get on top of the ramp. Some teams removed their tote stacking mechanisms during the season emphasizing that teams had made tote stacking irrelevant.

Also, before the withholding allowance I know that several teams in several different years designed major revisions between competitions and were able to do a ground up rebuild of their robot on Thursday of a following competition or at Championships. So the withholding allowance rules didn't allow for iterations or copying, they somewhat formalized the process.

A truly competitive team will continue to improve their robot throughout the season.

[SenorZ]

"First" hint: Rick Astley pic/Rick Roll hint
- Rick rolling started in 2007
- FRC game in 2007: Rack 'n' Roll
- anagram of "Rick Astley" is "Rack Ye Lit"

"Second" hint: reference to Mesoamerica calendar
- 'coincidence' --> to coincide --> overlap geometrically
- calendar is round, has rings

Official hint: pi-cipher poem
First couplet --> Seal's Kiss From a Rose
- released 1994, mentions tower in first line
- FRC game in 1994: Tower Power
Second couplet --> clue to game action
- "a dinner, missed" --> missed meal, to "fast"
- "holding weight" --> to carry
- 'fast carry' could mean to haul something

From this analysis, and the repetition of the number 3 in postings, I'm guessing there will be three scoring stations, most likely a tower/rack that teams can load/dump game elements into. But opposing alliances will be able to steal points somehow, so holding elements til the end might be encouraged. The scoring towers/racks might have light indicators showing which has the higher number of game elements by weight.
Also I might have just wasted too much time thinking about all this and will be very disappointed on Kickoff day!

[dodar]

Originally Posted by SenorZ

"First" hint: Rick Astley pic/Rick Roll hint
- Rick rolling started in 2007
- FRC game in 2007: Rack 'n' Roll
- anagram of "Rick Astley" is "Rack Ye Lit"

"Second" hint: reference to Mesoamerica calendar
- 'coincidence' --> to coincide --> overlap geometrically
- calendar is round, has rings

Official hint: pi-cipher poem
First couplet --> Seal's Kiss From a Rose
- released 1994, mentions tower in first line
- FRC game in 1994: Tower Power
Second couplet --> clue to game action
- "a dinner, missed" --> missed meal, to "fast"
- "holding weight" --> to carry
- 'fast carry' could mean to haul something

From this analysis, and the repetition of the number 3 in postings, I'm guessing there will be three scoring stations, most likely a tower/rack that teams can load/dump game elements into. But opposing alliances will be able to steal points somehow, so holding elements til the end might be encouraged. The scoring towers/racks might have light indicators showing which has the higher number of game elements by weight.
Also I might have just wasted too much time thinking about all this and will be very disappointed on Kickoff day!

Nice analysis. Maybe a mixture game of 2005 and 2007.

[apalrd]

Originally Posted by skimoose

I would disagree. The reason there are fewer varied designs in FRC now has nothing, or very very little, to do with the withholding allowance rule. The reason for fewer varied designed is the volume of game rules strangling creativity. Thinking outside the box used to be celebrated, now it is often viewed as lawyering the rules. The GDC has used the rules to force the game to be played as they envisioned it being played.

THIS. THIS AGAIN.

I talked to a member of the VEX GDC, about de-scoring in Sack Attack. He said, if they didn't want teams to de-score, they would have designed the troughs so it was hard to de-score. The GDC could do a lot of things in the design of the field elements and point values to make the game play out like they wanted without making rules against gameplay.

A great example these rules is the 2012 side-of-bridge hook. It is not simple to design and build a lightweight, compact solution to hang off of the side bridge. IMHO, it was a very creative and elegant solution to the three-robots-on-a-bridge problem which was outlawed because the GDC didn't like that method of playing the game. If they didn't want teams to hang off the side, maybe they should have removed the side flange.

[|DELTA|]

^
That.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by apalrd

If they didn't want teams to hang off the side, maybe they should have removed the side flange.

I agree with your general sentiment, but considering the purpose of the side flanges (keeping robots on the ramp), I think this would be one case where the GDC could say "don't hang off the side flange please" and not stifle creativity too much. A *few* rules that limit designs aren't a problem - what's aggravating to me is the sheer number of them.

I'm not 100% sure that an expanded ruleset would make the *average* team more creative, but there would certainly be more outliers.

[BrianT103]

I won't spend my time speculating on the hint, however I will say that it is difficult for me to ignore the number of indicators that have appeared over the past months that seem to suggest FIRST is moving to a 4v4 format for 2013. The smaller KOP chassis dimensions, new 4" wheels from AM, and the fact that 2012 saw a driver station in what once was an area solely reserved for human players all seem to support this idea. I suspect the new size requirements for 2013 could be 28" by 32" in order to help offset the space taken up by an additional 2 teams on the playing field. Moving to a 4v4 would be a win-win for FIRST and FIRST teams. Teams would be happy due to the increased number of matches it would allow them. More teams would be playing Saturday afternoon, helping to inspire more students. From a business perspective on FIRST's end, the move would be a home run. They would increase their "capacity" significantly while maintaining a similar amount of expenses for all events. Championships would become even bigger this year, and the amount of matches teams would have would increase notably. The move would also make a big dent in attempting to help make FIRST more affordable for all (more registration fees vs. identical overhead). The change would also buy time (a couple years) for FIRST to figure out what they are going to do with the rapidly unsustainable qualification structure of championship.

Lastly, and this is more of a wild guess that what was stated above... If the game is indeed 4v4 I predict that we will see a mostly open field that is void of major obstacles like last year. The major reason being that the GDC would be cautious not to "clutter" the field with the addition of 2 more teams on the playing field.

[Chris is me]

For what it's worth, we aren't certain the KOP chassis is smaller, we just know it all fits in a smaller box.

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

For what it's worth, we aren't certain the KOP chassis is smaller, we just know it all fits in a smaller box.

And we know it is compatible with a belt drive system.

[dotbran]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

For what it's worth, we aren't certain the KOP chassis is smaller, we just know it all fits in a smaller box.

Agreed. It is valuable for teams to be able to make large-chassis robots but never an absolute necessity for success. Rookie teams, while creative, typically do not find ways to make effective us of a full-size chassis. Thus, the change in kit bot size is probably the result of AM and FIRST's push in the past few years to cut material costs.

Since this is a year where the pattern suggests a non-ball game pieces, what are outlying (frequently used or never used) shapes for game pieces? Tetras have been mentioned in this thread, which seem cool but would be less durable than even the orbit balls from Lunacy. Life rafts seem an obvious possibility.

[DampRobot]

Although it sure would be interesting to find out on the 5th that we need a smaller chassis, I really don't think the size will change. As I said earlier, the GDC tends to stick with what works. I find it especially hard to believe that they would both change the chassis dimensions and the number of robots on the field at the same time, since both haven't really changed since 2005, and neither present huge problems.

In case others on this thread didn't know, the reason they chose the 38" by 28" frame size was to allow robots with bumpers to fit through standard sized doors. Not that smaller frames would change this, but the 28" number wasn't just pulled out of a hat. I would suspect that the kitbot is just smaller than usual, but I could easily be surprised come kickoff.

Changing the withholding allowance wouldn't "level the playing field." Powerhouse teams don't just iterate heavily, they often just get how to play a game successfully because they've had successful designs in the past. Sure, all the best teams upgrade their robot, keep parts of it back for software, or just manufacture parts after build is over. But if they had to ship their final robot, it would be very good anyway. Eliminating the withholding allowance would hurt the teams who didn't get the robot right the first time (the non-powerhouse teams) a lot more than those who mostly did (the powerhouse teams).

[dotbran]

Originally Posted by DampRobot

Changing the withholding allowance wouldn't "level the playing field." Powerhouse teams don't just iterate heavily, they often just get how to play a game successfully because they've had successful designs in the past. Sure, all the best teams upgrade their robot, keep parts of it back for software, or just manufacture parts after build is over. But if they had to ship their final robot, it would be very good anyway. Eliminating the withholding allowance would hurt the teams who didn't get the robot right the first time (the non-powerhouse teams) a lot more than those who mostly did (the powerhouse teams).

In my experience it is the powerhouse teams who withhold the most weight and have the resources and expertise to take best advantage of the extra time.

Originally Posted by dotbran

In my experience it is the powerhouse teams who withhold the most weight and have the resources and expertise to take best advantage of the extra time.

It's not that the powerhouse teams get the time to iterate, it's that the teams who use the time given to them to iterate end up being powerhouse teams.

Iteration is something everyone can do.

[alectronic]

Originally Posted by dotbran

In my experience it is the powerhouse teams who withhold the most weight and have the resources and expertise to take best advantage of the extra time.

Just in response to people that have speculated an end of stop build or whatnot, it looks like that is already outlined in the manual. It says stop build day is the 19th, but it is true that there isn't details on the withholding info.

http://frc-manual.usfirst.org/viewItem/7#4.6.1

[Chimera0x694]

I have been thinking about how the game hint was labeled "#3"... we have all been assuming that the # symbol stands for number, when in actuality it refers to "pound". Pound 3? Maybe the game pieces weigh 3 pounds....