2015 Game

[Paperclips]

Originally Posted by BBray_T1296

WCMP Robot:

The GDC will not comment on specific strategies or designs

[brandon.cottrell]

I really want to see tetras reused. There were just so many different ways to pick one up, all kinds of different designs. I can't really figure out where they could fit into a projectile game though.

[roboryan]

Originally Posted by pimathbrainiac

Recently, we've had the "Something Completely Different," "Large Balls," and "Small Balls" games. I have a feeling that we're going to have a "Tubes and Pegs" game next year.

Well this is what my team is figuring this to along with some sort of arm game obviously to pick up the tubes.


RANDOM GAME IDEA SECTION
What if it was a capture the flag idea game but theres a vertical pole(possibly 2) with a bunch of tubes of their alliance color on it on each side of the field. and then you have a capturing pole

You use your arm or other devices to manipulate one tube at a time onto your capture pole or take a tube from the opponents capture pole back onto your holding poles or you could take a tube from the opponents capture pole and onto a center pole and you cant take tubes off this pole once they are on who ever ends the match with their color tube on top gets bonus

AFTER THOUGHT GAME
What about having to stack the first logo (triangle circle square) this would require 3 holding poles

just random ideas

[BBray_T1296]

Originally Posted by roboryan

AFTER THOUGHT GAME
What about having to stack the first logo (triangle circle square) this would require 3 holding poles

3 holding poles : Red Team, White team, and Blue team

3 Alliances confirmed







HL3 confirmed

[styxracer97]

hockey

[Wayne TenBrink]

I would like to see the game piece be a tube. Not an inflated inner tube, but a piece of hollow tubing. For example, a 6" diameter x 18" long piece of PVC pipe or some such thing. Length, diameter, weight, surface texture, material could be almost anything. Perhaps different tubes for different tasks and scores.

The objective should include pickup and placement. I don't really care what they have us do with them. It would be an interesting challenge to see how teams picked the game piece up and manipulated its orientation placement.

I have seen enough spheres and toroids for a while.

[Libby K]

Originally Posted by roboryan

What about having to stack the first logo (triangle circle square) this would require 3 holding poles

just random ideas

Did you mean:

[adciv]

Originally Posted by styxracer97

hockey

Played on a low traction surface...with specific low traction wheels mandated under the game rules.

[nuclearnerd]

I've totally got this one.

*Ball Pit*

Harkening back to Maize Craze a bit. Imagine a standard field, filled up to 2 ft high with 6" plastic balls. Robots have to "swim" through the pit to push balls over a weir into a goal. Add some rules for goalies and incentives for team-ups (still thinking about that) and you've got a really neat new game for 2015.

[efoote868]

I'd like to see heavy game pieces; objects that will change the dynamic of robot interactions.

Say game pieces are 16 lb bowling balls, object is to place the balls on a teeter-totter. Some scoring formula for number of balls per side and all of that, and let the robots balance on the teeter-totter for points as well.
Game pieces can be de-scored, and bonuses for having the teeter-totter balanced at intervals in the game.

Don't limit the number of bowling balls that can be possessed, which will force teams to make difficult design choices.

[g_sawchuk]

Originally Posted by adciv

Played on a low traction surface...with specific low traction wheels mandated under the game rules.

Considering that this is starting to sound like Lunacy control-wise, and considering the fact that a lot of people disliked Lunacy, I highly doubt that it will be played on a low traction surface, therefore making hockey a very unlikely game. Without a low traction surface it also wouldn't be as interesting.

Originally Posted by efoote868

I'd like to see heavy game pieces; objects that will change the dynamic of robot interactions.
Say game pieces are 16 lb bowling balls, object is to place the balls on a teeter-totter. Some scoring formula for number of balls per side and all of that, and let the robots balance on the teeter-totter for points as well.
Game pieces can be de-scored, and bonuses for having the teeter-totter balanced at intervals in the game.
Don't limit the number of bowling balls that can be possessed, which will force teams to make difficult design choices.

This would actually be a quite interesting game that I would be really excited to make a robot for. I myself was also thinking that it may be a stacking/balancing game which would be interesting because it would focus more on exact precision which many games have not focused on up to this point. It would also be interesting because you would not score by a goal, but instead by how something is stacked/balanced, or how many objects are stacked/balanced.

Originally Posted by nuclearnerd

I've totally got this one.

*Ball Pit*

Harkening back to Maize Craze a bit. Imagine a standard field, filled up to 2 ft high with 6" plastic balls. Robots have to "swim" through the pit to push balls over a weir into a goal. Add some rules for goalies and incentives for team-ups (still thinking about that) and you've got a really neat new game for 2015.

This is a creative idea, and would most certainly be one of the most unique FRC games ever. However, I see a variety of problems that would make this game difficult, and a variety of variables that would unfairly change the game as each competition progressed.
-Ball damage - We're talking plastic balls here, they will break easily when force is applied by robots
- Sinking robots - If the balls don't break and are stiff, the robots will most likely sink deep, deep down right into the darkness of the pit
- Driver visibility - Once this happens the driver won't see the robot... then what?

I completely understand that it is only 2 ft of balls, but that can be a major issue. Teams would need to build high enough robots that can be seen, but what happens if they need to be rather tall? Taller robots are more prone to falling, and with the added challenge of a surface of a bunch of plastic balls, I predict that a lot of robots would be falling over.

It's a unique idea, but I think it may just be a bit too much for a good and understandable game.

[Oblarg]

Continuing the trend of the past ten years or so, the game piece will not be a ball.

This year's field didn't have any major obstructions at all. I expect that to change.

I would really like to see a game where movement is crucially important, a la 2008. The "race" format of that game was a lot of fun and refreshingly different from anything else they've done.

[WaterClaw]

Originally Posted by Tim Lehmann4967

STAR WARS Pod Race

I wish . But has anyone else noticed that the first three posts almost mirrored the discussion we were having about the 2014 game? Getting redundant if you ask me.

Regardless, last year's game involved many of the same elements of overdrive (large balls and launching them over a truss at least). Personally, I think we could assume then that the game is going to be involving similar elements of a previous game.

So in considering what the 2015 game will be, podracing, poker, blimps, driving with bopits, robot water polo, and anything else FIRST has yet to consider could be ruled out of the picture...could be

[cadandcookies]

Originally Posted by nuclearnerd

I've totally got this one.

*Ball Pit*

Harkening back to Maize Craze a bit. Imagine a standard field, filled up to 2 ft high with 6" plastic balls. Robots have to "swim" through the pit to push balls over a weir into a goal. Add some rules for goalies and incentives for team-ups (still thinking about that) and you've got a really neat new game for 2015.

I can't imagine testing locomotion methods for this. If a game like this were the case, I'm guessing we'd see a lot of teams that wouldn't be able to move effectively.

[g_sawchuk]

Originally Posted by cadandcookies

I can't imagine testing locomotion methods for this. If a game like this were the case, I'm guessing we'd see a lot of teams that wouldn't be able to move effectively.

Exactly. If it was a shooting based game as well I could see teams all going for a stationary shooter which would most likely be more effective then driving all around extremely slow. Or just moving. Defense would also most likely not be an aspect of such a slow moving game as well. It would eliminate some of the key components of games that previous years have had.

By stationary shooter I mean something like that of what was used in Breakaway (2010) by a few teams, in which they would lock themselves into the tunnel and redirect balls via two chutes. However, this would only be possible if the game permitted that.