[FRC Blog] 2014 Game Hint

[thatgirlinred]

1963 was when Iron Man was first drawn. An Iron Man is a type of triathlon. There's also talks about a mashup of old games, relating to the Dr. Who anniversary and the green/recycling theory. The number 3 is a prominent feature.
I think the game will be some sort of triathlon of past games.

[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!"

[Jpass]

Oh, and one thing I forgot to mention: There's most likely an endgame of some sort, but I've absolutely no idea what it could be. Perhaps I'm completely wrong about everything and stairs must be climbed at the end, or something as predictable as that, but maybe alliances just need to be in a particular spot or in some specific relation to each other or something.

ORR... (And this would be interesting) the robots need to make a chain of contact, but the teams below need to stay below, those above need to stay above, and the intermediates need to establish contact, so a chain of 6 robots (say 1 blue below touching another blue below touching a green on the stairs touching another green on the stairs touching a red above touching the last, red robot) would score full coopertition points.

That sounds like a lot of fun, I just went from disliking my own theory to hoping I'm right.

[alectronic]

Originally Posted by Jpass

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.

They had "side switching" in 2006:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jr-nNBK0O1Y

[Jpass]

Originally Posted by alectronic

They had "side switching" in 2006:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jr-nNBK0O1Y

Huh. Scratch that remark then, I should've done my homework a bit better. I'd only watched the videos back to 2009, and read brief summaries of the rest. (Our rookie season was last year.)

Thanks for that, I may have to do a rethink.

[ButterflyXing]

When we searched the divided numbers in the andymark catalog, we got the #144- lunacy wheels and #31- a 3/16" bearing. The three didn't give us anything. Looking at the FIRST Choice, we got #144 a size 2 stainless steel track, #031- pnumatic tubing (a transparent yellow) and #003 an adjustable 6" chrome wrench.

[SteveGPage]

1st attempt didn't work right!

[SteveGPage]

Neither did the second!

[SteveGPage]

I took the hint in a completely different direction. Perhaps my thoughts can take this discussion into different areas.
The three sets of numbers represent the three phases of the game: AM, Teleop, End game. The first number describes the action, the second in the set describes a rule or limitation.
To briefly take you down the path of my thoughts, I initially noticed that the larger numbers were fairly close to the total number minutes for the build season. From there, I wanted to see if any event was taking place in the 2014 Olympics in that minute - starting the clock at midnight, January 1st and counting from there.
This is what comes up:

1823 - converts to 2:17:14 - which I then converted to 2/17/14. The main event that day is the Free Dance competition. Sounds like AM to me.
57 represents the length of the field. Including the driver's station area - so thought it indicates that there is no limit how you far you can go in AM.

61126 converts to 2/12/14 at 10:45 - the beginning of the pairs free skate in figure skating. Sounds like two alliances.
1963 is the area of a circle with a radius of 25 inches. Perhaps the max size the bot can be.

62326 coverts to 2/13/14 at 6:45 - just before the beginning of the short track speed skating. While it isn't the exact minute, perhaps the use of a palindrome here represents having to go back and forth. This would be the end game.
Still trying to figure out what the last number, 15806 would represent in this case.

Just some different thoughts on this hint.

Have fun - Geekmas is almost here!

[wilhitern1]

Originally Posted by yarden.saa

I found a US post office in front of the "FIRST Security sign"

Long Shot - Security is often handled with Codes / Passwords / Combinations. Post boxes often have combinations. So could there be a "mailbox of sorts" that we have to use a combination to in order to deliver a game object.

Neal

[RoundTabler]

Just took a look at patents with the number 15806,
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...rmdo=1&tbm=pts
and I got geo steering assemblies and a basket carrier.

Somerun want to run with this?

Either I or someone else should check the other numbers.

EDIT: Just went back and checked some of the other numbers:
62326 gives us a patent for a safety ladder....stairs anyone?

[MooreteP]

Originally Posted by RoundTabler

Just took a look at patents with the number 15806,
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...rmdo=1&tbm=pts
and I got geo steering assemblies and a basket carrier.

Somerun want to run with this?

Either I or someone else should check the other numbers.

EDIT: Just went back and checked some of the other numbers:
62326 gives us a patent for a safety ladder....stairs anyone?

I like this.
Patents contain design information.
DEKA is into patents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEKA_(company)

Can you post links?

Oh, you did.

[MooreteP]

Here is an image of the basket patent?

[theCADguy]

Hmmm...

The picture from the basket patent includes glass bottles. We also previously discussed the potential importance of the water bottles at the feet of Dean and Woodie in the picture posted earlier in this thread. The game this year may have a connection to recycling, most likely sorting game pieces.

[valeriemoore]

1.(New) Has anyone considered going to the places in real life? I know that we have found signs at two of the points that seem relevant, but only a church at the third. There might be something else there that is hard or can't be found with google maps.

2.(Reflection) I think that baseball seems very likely. Between the graph that produces the sphere when the base points are put in, the fact that we are due for a ball game, and the puns on baseball.

3.(New info on old theory) I agree with whoever mentioned the difficulty with an abstract game. As someone who did field reset at midwest last year (I have never counted to 15 so many times before in my life), match turnover is so much easier when the scoring only counts once(i.e. No multipliers) . The sensors were what put the score up on the screen, but the score that actually determined the match was what we counted out. Usually we would count the Frisbees as they came in and kept a running count, but if we lost count, or there were 50+ we would do a manual recount which could take more than a minute. For there to be multipliers would make everything just so much more difficult. The game overall will probably be easy to follow along, the game pieces that are scored in the higher goals count more etc. This also makes sense with the way FIRST has been building their games in previous years. There is an easy, low point, way to score, a middle, and a difficult. The game will probably have multiple ways of scoring, some easy others difficult, and the points will probably not have multiplies.