[FRC Blog] - NASA Grants and Something New for 2015

[nfhammes]

Number of teams on an alliance: 2v2? like FTC and old FRC? Could be interesting.
Number of alliances in a match: Unless they make it 2x2x2x2, would probably make modifying the field really expensive.
Match length: They can change it a bit, but there's event scheduling issues.
Bumper rules: These have changed frequently. Not that exciting.
Field surfaces: Low-friction surface, anyone?
Robot size: I don't see this changing too drastically either.

[notmattlythgoe]

Originally Posted by nfhammes

Number of teams on an alliance: 2v2? like FTC and old FRC? Could be interesting.
Number of alliances in a match: Unless they make it 2x2x2x2, would probably make modifying the field really expensive.
Match length: They can change it a bit, but there's event scheduling issues.
Bumper rules: These have changed frequently. Not that exciting.
Field surfaces: Low-friction surface, anyone?
Robot size: I don't see this changing too drastically either.

This would also cause scheduling issues because you've now drastically dropped the number of matches each team will play.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by notmattlythgoe

This would also cause scheduling issues because you've now drastically dropped the number of matches each team will play.

Unless you change the amount of time it takes per match "cycle."

[MechEng83]

Originally Posted by nfhammes

Number of teams on an alliance: 2v2? like FTC and old FRC? Could be interesting.
Number of alliances in a match: Unless they make it 2x2x2x2, would probably make modifying the field really expensive.
Match length: They can change it a bit, but there's event scheduling issues.
Bumper rules: These have changed frequently. Not that exciting.
Field surfaces: Low-friction surface, anyone?
Robot size: I don't see this changing too drastically either.

4v4 would work too, w/ drivers stations having to fit in the "small" station zones like they did for 2012. This has the added benefit of allowing matches to extend a little in length while not increasing the tournament length -- or allow teams to get in 12 (or more?) actual matches at larger regionals.

[The_ShamWOW88]

I know they may have other reasons for this but 4 team alliances gives more credence to why there were 4 team alliances at World Champs last season.

Maybe early premonition?

[BrendanB]

Originally Posted by The_ShamWOW88

I know they may have other reasons for this but 4 team alliances gives more credence to why there were 4 team alliances at World Champs last season.

Maybe early premonition?

Maybe its how they plan to fit more teams at the championship without adding more fields?

[notmattlythgoe]

Originally Posted by BrendanB

Maybe its how they plan to fit more teams at the championship without adding more fields?

I'm trying to imagine the logistic of fitting 8 robots onto one field without changing the size limitations on the robots again. Especially if we see some field obstacles added to the field again. That would be one crowded field.

[nfhammes]

Originally Posted by notmattlythgoe

I'm trying to imagine the logistic of fitting 8 robots onto one field without changing the size limitations on the robots again. Especially if we see some field obstacles added to the field again. That would be one crowded field.

At least with defensive bots as a fourth spot for queuing on either side, queuing at most events wouldn't be impacted too significantly. But loading-on, even if each alliance queues in on one side, and isn't disrupted by robots getting off, would add some to match cycle time. Which is admittedly less of an issue when each match gives 8 plays, rather than 6.

[notmattlythgoe]

Originally Posted by nfhammes

At least with defensive bots as a fourth spot for queuing on either side, queuing at most events wouldn't be impacted too significantly. But loading-on, even if each alliance queues in on one side, and isn't disrupted by robots getting off, would add some to match cycle time. Which is admittedly less of an issue when each match gives 8 plays, rather than 6.

I'm more talking about match play. These fields get crowded with 6 robots playing on them, add in another 2 robots and you end up with clusters or robots not able to move because there isn't enough room. Not much fun to watch or compete in.

[The_ShamWOW88]

Maybe instead of 4 v 4, keep the same amount of bots but 3 alliances of 2 teams....add that mysterious Green alliance everyone keeps talking about....

[Steven Donow]

Originally Posted by notmattlythgoe

I'm more talking about match play. These fields get crowded with 6 robots playing on them, add in another 2 robots and you end up with clusters or robots not able to move because there isn't enough room. Not much fun to watch or compete in.

Yeah. Keeping logistics in mind, I assume this means something like different playing surface or bumper rules or robot size or something.

[Libby K]

Originally Posted by Steven Donow

Yeah. Keeping logistics in mind, I assume this means something like different playing surface or bumper rules or robot size or something.

Oh god. No. Please no. Not again.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Libby K

Oh god. No. Please no. Not again.

I didn't realize Maize Craze scarred baby Libby so horribly.

[The_ShamWOW88]

Field changes could mean that we may see something sort of field element we have to climb over or drive over, etc. Something like 2003 with the ramp, 2004 with the steps, 2012 with the balancing ramps....

[Jay O'Donnell]

Does anyone else find it odd that this was posted seemingly out of the blue with no real significance to it? We didn't really learn anything and this sort of came out of nowhere. I'm wondering why they would even say this. Hopefully when January 3rd hits we'll understand!