Asymmetric Playing Field

[cmrnpizzo14]

Since I have been attending FIRST competitions (2006), all of the fields have been symmetrical. Have there ever been playing fields that have been asymmetric? I think that it would create a very interesting dynamic to the game to have a field that offers different options on different sides.

Just to provide an example, it is very popular in paintball to have a "snake side" and a "Dorito side" corresponding to the shapes of the barriers on each side. In high level games a team will often prioritize working the snake or the Doritos. Since paintball can also be played 3v3, I think that there could be a direct correlation to a FIRST game.



It would be interesting to see teams have very specialized roles. It would create the teamwork aspect that was the signature focus of Aerial Assist, but it would also allow teams to be successful on their own like in Ultimate Ascent or Rebound Rumble.

Any thoughts about this?

[EricH]

As a matter of fact, yes. Back in 1993, I believe the field was T-shaped with a ramp at the junction.

Also, the field was hexagonal for several years after that up until 1998; after that, the rectangle was adopted.

[cmrnpizzo14]

Originally Posted by EricH

As a matter of fact, yes. Back in 1993, I believe the field was T-shaped with a ramp at the junction.

Also, the field was hexagonal for several years after that up until 1998; after that, the rectangle was adopted.

Were the sides of the field just mirrors of each other though? If I remember right from the videos the hexagonal fields were just a different shape but still symmetrical. I haven't really seen the 1993 game at all so I can't comment on that.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by cmrnpizzo14

Were the sides of the field just mirrors of each other though? If I remember right from the videos the hexagonal fields were just a different shape but still symmetrical. I haven't really seen the 1993 game at all so I can't comment on that.

To a point, yes. The hexagonal fields were really wacky when it came to elims setup, but I don't remember reading any of the details.

P.S. I've been informed that the 1999 game was on a square field. Matter of fact, that one did have the Puck, which if moved off its starting point--and it was meant to be moved--made the field asymmetrical, and the robots were the primary scorers, more asymmetry...

[sanddrag]

Things often got rather asymmetrical any match Team 71 played in 2002.

[efoote868]

2007's inside of the field was asymmetric due to the randomization of the rack.

[Justin Montois]

I believe the 2005 (Triple Play) the field was symmetrical in the long dimension and asymmetrical in the short dimension due to the shape and position of the center goal.

[Nemo]

FTC fields are asymmetrical in that the sides are mirrored so drivers can stand on adjacent sides of the diamond. The differences aren't huge, but it does create a need to make autonomous code work from both sides of the field. Some robots can be a little better as one alliance color than the other in FTC, but I don't remember seeing a situation when it was a big deal.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by Justin Montois

I believe the 2005 (Triple Play) the field was symmetrical in the long dimension and asymmetrical in the short dimension due to the shape and position of the center goal.

Also the auto and human player loading zones.

[bduddy]

2012 and 2013 also had asymmetrical loading zones, plus the low goal in 2013.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by bduddy

2012 and 2013 also had asymmetrical loading zones, plus the low goal in 2013.

They were the same to the team's point of view though, which is what the OP is referring to.