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

[FrankJ]

Funny you should say no wheels. I think I found a game hint.

[Joe G.]

While speculating here, keep in mind that every decision FIRST makes regarding the game is ultimately intended to further the sport of FIRST Robotics. Messing with us is secondary. This can even be seen in some of the less popular moves FIRST has made (Here I'll point to the serpentine draft. Unpopular among the community, especially elite teams, but makes FIRST more marketable due to the increased average quality and intensity of every elimination match, right down to the 1v8 quarterfinal). Many of the things being posted in this thread simply wouldn't make sense to FIRST:

• Getting rid of CIMs, unless forced by production concerns, would compromise the average level of quality of FRC robots, and make two huge FIRST suppliers who have spent lots and lots of money on products designed for the CIM's mounting interface and specs very unhappy.
• Any significant reduction in maximum size beyond a trivial change to throw off pre-season CAD would make the robots less impressive, and the sport a less effective media spectacle. FRC stands out among their competitors in this area, and compromising this would hurt them. Same logic goes for weight, and to a lesser extent, power reduction. I admit that by this logic, I was very surprised, and initially quite disappointed, with the change in the 2013 rules, but in retrospect, this change had the positive impact of freeing robots from rules which lent themselves to rectangular boxes, and has resulted in some pretty creative robot shapes over the years.
• 2v2v2, aside from the mentioned "ganging up" concerns, makes the game much harder to follow. 4v4 would happen before this, but with the move to districts and smaller events, I see that as pretty unlikely as well. Let's not return to the bracket of doom...
• Dramatic changes to field surface or how robots move don't make sense either. Again, FIRST robots are becoming more agile and fun to watch each year, and tossing a huge change in here would be a huge step backwards. These speculation threads seem to accept as fact the idea that regolith is a standard "tool" in FIRST's game design arsenal much like inner tubes or foam balls, and it's only a matter of time before it comes back. I think FIRST has wisely learned from what most people consider one of the worst games of the 3v3 era, and they would be silly to return to it. I've seen a lot of arguments for why Lunacy was a bad game, but I think the root cause was that by its nature, the mobility rules and surface crippled FRC robots, made them less capable than they would be otherwise for the sake of changing things up a bit, and made them less impressive for spectators. Here you have these multi thousand dollar, precision engineered, carefully programmed machines, and they're...sliding out of control into each other in a 6 way robot mosh pit? No thanks, I'll take an open field and difficult manipulation tasks any day, and I'd like to think the GDC views the 2009 game in a similar way. We're overdue for terrain elements, but it'd be best for FIRST to give us elements that they can reasonably expect elite teams to master (2010, 2012).

I wouldn't read too much into this. FIRST is not going to do something simply for the sake of throwing us for a loop...any changes will be backed up with improving the quality of the program. I can't find links now, but I recall seeing similar warnings via the blog in other years as well. I'd take this for what it is, a simple reminder that nothing is set in stone, going into the season with a closed mind will hurt your process, and maybe it's best to spend your preseason making your team more sustainable than perfecting your flat-field west coast drive with dimensions to accommodate last year's manipulators, rather than a warning of radical changes to major elements of the FIRST program.

[Nemo]

Originally Posted by mrnoble

I take it you're not serious.

Not serious. Dry humor.

[Michael Hill]

Originally Posted by Joe G.

• Getting rid of CIMs, unless forced by production concerns, would compromise the average level of quality of FRC robots, and make two huge FIRST suppliers who have spent lots and lots of money on products designed for the CIM's mounting interface and specs very unhappy.

2009 was already precedence that FIRST would do this sort of thing. It's not like those same suppliers don't have a huge financial interest in their wheels either. When 2009's game was released, all already-designed wheels got thrown out the window that year. When I speculated about CIMs going away, it was a guess because production issues can and do happen. There's not a shred of evidence that anything has happened to CIM production at all, it's just a possibility.

[cadandcookies]

My bet would be a change in field material. Not to water or ice, but an alternative like Regolith/FCB, astroturf, or a metallic surface. Or an uneven/inconsistent surface (like the corn in 1992, a ball pit, or some sort of randomized structure) that would provide a variable playing field, like the "Tower of Terror" in this year's FTC game, but even more extreme.

[Ryan Dognaux]

My guesses are a smaller robot frame perimeter and a 4 vs 4 game. Events are growing, this will allow teams to have more matches without a super quick cycle time. If robots are 2/3 the size from previous years and the game is right I think it could work.

Remember - we've had 4 team alliances before. (Even if no one wants to remember 2001.)

[Lil' Lavery]

From the standpoint of an engineering challenge, I would love a no-wheels game*. From a spectator standpoint, I agree it would likely be a nightmare.

*Depending on the clarity of the rules and what is and isn't allowed.

[FrankJ]

Realize the Cim is essentially a commercial motor to a spec. Not likely to go anywhere. Globes & Fischer Price motors were donated motors that went into a product. More likely to go away when the product or donor goes away.

[Deke]

I think there will be a playing field, robots, game pieces, referees, and alliances. Some rules may vary.

[cadandcookies]

Originally Posted by Infinity2718

I think there will be a playing field, robots, game pieces, referees, and alliances. Some rules may vary.

Also it's unlikely to have balls as game pieces.

[Gregor]

Originally Posted by Ryan Dognaux

My guesses are a smaller robot frame perimeter and a 4 vs 4 game. Events are growing, this will allow teams to have more matches without a super quick cycle time. If robots are 2/3 the size from previous years and the game is right I think it could work.

Remember - we've had 4 team alliances before. (Even if no one wants to remember 2001.)

Events are shrinking, not growing. As we move to the district system the average event gets smaller.

[Jessica Boucher]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

From the standpoint of an engineering challenge, I would love a no-wheels game*. From a spectator standpoint, I agree it would likely be a nightmare.

*Depending on the clarity of the rules and what is and isn't allowed.

That happened in 2007.

[The_ShamWOW88]

Originally Posted by Infinity2718

I think there will be a playing field, robots, game pieces, referees, and alliances. Some rules may vary.

Kind of a stretch dontcha think?

[mwtidd]

Frank's trying to trick us. 2015 is going to be Aerial Assist, with the same exact rules.

[Derpancakes]

Originally Posted by cadandcookies

My bet would be a change in field material. Not to water or ice, but an alternative like Regolith/FCB, astroturf, or a metallic surface. Or an uneven/inconsistent surface (like the corn in 1992, a ball pit, or some sort of randomized structure) that would provide a variable playing field, like the "Tower of Terror" in this year's FTC game, but even more extreme.

Honestly, I think the theme is going to be related to space with so much spacey stuff happening in 2015, and talk like this brings nightmares of the unspeakable game...