[FRC Blog] 2014 Game Hint

[Jpass]

Okay, I only just learned of this thread a few hours ago, and since then have been looking at other peoples' findings and thinking.

Baseball seems right; the supporting evidence of the many reasons FRC would need to keep the game simple along with the many varied signposts indicating a baseball theme tell me that it isn't a red herring.
What is baseball, at it's core? One 'side' trying to score and another trying to prevent them from doing so, as well as providing them with the objects they need in order to score.
Why wouldn't straight baseball work if adapted for FRC? Obvious; in baseball, one team is purely defensive and the other purely offensive in a given segment of the game, and "side-switching" mid-match in FRC is unheard of, so regular baseball isn't the answer; some modification, at it's core, however, may be.

The various space themes: Interesting as they may be, the only things I can glean from them are 1. Possible debris on the field as was mentioned before, and 2. launching something from the ground to the sky. With 2, some baseball adaptation is looking pretty good.

Now, on to the first widely-discussed picture in this thread: The green-screen picture. Firstly, yes, 3 alliances, two with classic red/blue and the third green; green is far too significant* and the presence of two red lights and two blue lights too unlikely for me to believe otherwise at this time. Secondly, the waters; the triangle may be significant, but only in it's shape in that it's NOT equilateral. The 3-alliance theory has been shot down repeatedly because it is assumed that 3 alliances given equal opportunity and placement cannot compete in an even and fair fashion. I agree. However, so would the eggheads coming up with this competition, and if they wanted to have three alliances they'd have to plan for it by setting aside one of them as significantly different than the other 2 - possibly have one team as significant (as represented by the water NOT on the floor, ie raised up) and the other two coopertating somehow.
Now, how to apply that to the baseball theory? Think about it logically. If we assume that there are indeed three alliances and that the game is indeed baseball, short of trading off field positions three times/match how would one go about turning a two-sided sport into a three-sided one? Well, in baseball, there are 9 fielders and a maximum of 4 runners (in a grand slam). That's roughly a 2-1 ratio. Now, if you have two active teams, one twice the size of the other, and want to make 3 equal teams from that, what would you do? Divide the larger, fielding team into two.

Moving right along, the next thing I want to discuss is the second relevant image, one in which what appears to be a set of stairs can be seen in a cad file. The idea of stairs being present is why I specified "ie raised up" above. In the triangle the numbers created and in the water cups, it can almost be said that two entities are opposite each other and a third is an intermediate tending towards the lower one. What I'm imagining is: One alliance being ON a platform at all times, one being OFF at all times, and a third being an intermediate trying to help the one off the platform, being able to go both up and down the stairs. (The earlier "Berlin Wall" findings make me thing that the stairs could, rather span the entire width of the platform, be only about as wide as a Rebound Rumble bridge, being a gap in the metaphorical wall.)

Now, what would teams in these positions have to do? This is where I run low on guesses. I would wager that the team on the platform would have to be a scoring team, in that that is their first and only priority for at least the majority of the match. (The scoring objects'll be round I'd bet, enough evidence to support it.) I would also bet that the intermediate's task would be to hinder them from doing so while helping the team off the platform do what they need to do. However, I have fewer guesses for the possible details here. In this theoretical game, there would be obstacles in the way of (or at the disposal of?) the intermediate team, and they would be responsible for aiding the team off the platform. My only guess at the moment as to how the teams would score would be to shoot spheres with a diameter the same as that of a baseball or softball into circular goals with varying point values. One possible breakdown of those point values would be that which is indicated by the feet on the floor in the first photo; perhaps two holes on either side of the field, one of each pair maybe twice the diameter of the balls and one maybe 5 times the diameter. These two goals have point values of 2 and 1 (represented by the number of feet on the floor) respectively. Alliances on the floor and on the platform are both dedicated to shooting the whole time, at the goals opposite them. However, the team on the platform has a significant advantage given that they won't have to shoot nearly as high, and won't have a platform stopping them from shooting from anything farther than 2/3 court. (If the platform is 2 feet high and starts at half-court, the alliances shooting from below are going to have a 2-foot wall to shoot over, and, with height constraints, backing up much further may be necessary for a clear shot.) It is because of this advantage that the intermediate team will be helping the lower team by attempting to obstruct the upper team, and to bring game pieces to the lower team from the platform above. Now, what I'm picturing is that the game pieces that don't go in the goal land conveniently beside the opposite team, who then can pick it up and fire at the opposing goal, or be picked up by the intermediate to give to the other team.

I think I may have managed to convey my vision for this year's game adequately. One of the key things I keep referring back to in my mind that makes me believe my own theory as plausible is that "home run" message FRC put out. In that message, they mentioned that the chassis will be designed for removal and addition, quickly, of superstructures. I don't believe that's out of kindness, but rather out of necessity. Consider a robot that can climb stairs, throw baseball-sized-balls a good 40ft, manipulate potential obstacles/debris in the way, and drive quickly, maneuverably, and competitively. The robot you are considering weighs more than 90lbs, undoubtedly. Now consider one that can just drive up stairs, manipulate obstacles (possibly with the same device), and drive as described. Close, but easily under 90lbs. Now, picture a robot that can drive and fire baseballs as described; again, do-ably under 90lbs. Now think about it, a robot that has to do both - but, critically, not at the same time. Could that be under 90lbs? If you can change your superstructure in between tasks, it can. That's right. I'm picturing each robot having 2 superstructures, and superstructure changeouts being as common as bumper changeouts. "Round 8 we're red with stairclimbing." "Match 12 we're blue with launching." You get the idea. The robots'd be weighed at inspection either twice, once with each superstructure, or once, and then each superstructure individually weighed. Either way, 90lbs for the base and a single superstructure. And that's how we'd compete.

~sigh~ I just read through this product of a tired mind, and I truly hope probability wins out and that I'm wrong here. This sort of setup, while doable, doesn't lend itself to a "cheap and cheerful" robot, which is precisely what we need with so little funding at our team.
Thanks for reading my probably insane theories, looking forward to reading yours.

*: Unrelated, but I can't help but think that all of the people steadfastly announcing things like "GREEN IS THE HINT" were subconsciously channeling Sherlock shouting "PINK!"