2015 HINT DISCUSSION

[The_ShamWOW88]

Happy Holidays....

[cmrnpizzo14]

If someone could so kindly write a summary post I will quote it and link it back on the 1st or 2nd post of this thread so that people can get a quick summary without having to read 400+ posts. Netiquette is good, but not everyone has free time on Christmas Eve.

[*Rachelle*]

SUMMARY:

Many people believe that a 2v2v2 is possible, or some change in alliance number. Or change in how the Championships operate. "Eliminations matches" are now in the Admin manual as "Playoff matches."

"1999 footage" was not 1999 footage after all. It was from 1997, same match, different angle. When someone commented about it on the FRC blog, Frank commented "Whoops." Most people seem to think it was sarcastic- FIRST couldn't make that big of mistake in people's minds.

Another many people believe that the emphasis on the recycle bin means many past FRC games may be combined to create a new one. A question on this one was about veterans having too much of an advantage.

"Switching sides"- half-way through match you score on the opposite side of the field OR more coopertition and after the half the other alliance tries to finish what the other has started and vice versa.

The hint may simply be hinting at the name of the game, game names often include rhyming and alliteration.

Lots of speculation about the triangle paperclip and recycle symbol representing a Delta symbol- Meaning triangular game pieces. Also, LOTS about hockey. Another idea- two different shapes of game pieces (never been done before, so it would be a big change) Yet another idea, football related.

See Post #347 for results of past game hints.

People thought they could see white floor below Frank, meaning a new floor material- This was proved to not be true.

Andymark says the normal field "has the fit and function for the 2015 game"

Field barrier looks higher- see post #403 (and a couple others) explaining it is a camera angle trick.

Long boxes in KOP could be light bars or (foam) hockey pucks.

Change in size in robots- For example, same base, less weight.

Autonomous at end of match? Longer or maybe shorter game matches?

Maybe less reasons for penalties or less intricate specifications about gameplay to make refs' job easier


Gotta run- Christmas Eve and so much to do with so little time. Hope this is adequate, somebody feel free to copy and add if you find it necesary. Merry Christmas!

[dc74089]

A little play on words just popped into my head: Frank recycled the 2014 manual. The goal of the 2014 game was to complete as many and as high-scoring cycles as you can. I think FIRST might be trying to say something about the cycling aspect of last years game.

To re-cycle (as two words) is to cycle again. It makes sense with a hockey game (which is what seems to be the prominent theory here) that you'd only have one puck in play at a time. Will we be playing in cycles again this year? If it's hockey, I'd vote yes. But that goes against the multiple allusions to this year's game being completely new, so I'm kinda torn. Maybe someone else can go further with this than I can.

[Robert Cawthon]

Originally Posted by Oblarg

I will bet with very good odds that the size/number of alliances is not changing.

I am still looking for five team alliances. Two levels of drivers, three on the floor behind the glass, two on a raised platform behind and in between the three. That would also mean smaller robots on the field so that there would be enough room to maneuver.

[jvriezen]

Ok, here's a radical 'change' idea-- no more defense. There are two ways I can see this happening: 6v0 or two simultaneous 3v0 on a segregated field (i.e barrier midfield that can't be crossed.) Teams cooperate to score as much as possible, and the same ranking points are awarded to all six teams. (or each of the three teams on an alliance if it is 2 x 3v0.)

Such a big change would have to be justified, but I see several shortcomings that many in the FRC community complain about being solved by this.

1) Bumpers. No need to change bumper colors (even in 2x3v0 field marking can indicate alliance colors). This means teams can build one set of bumpers, permanently attach them (even if it takes two hours to do so) and never take them off. Inspection process would change to weigh with bumpers (maybe a higher max weight) and perimeter check would include bumpers. This speeds up inspection, no dragging bumper covers. or human error in changing bumpers and not fully attaching them resulting in lost or half attached bumpers on the field.

2) Refs - No pinning calls, no high speed ramming calls, and maybe no perimeter incursion calls. Refs could be limited to things like possession limits and such. Fewer subjective calls and less work for them to do.

3) Better modeling of 'real world' robotics technology. Lots of recent robotics R&D are for cooperating bots (swarms, amazon inventory picking, etc.) and the only real world applications for competing robots is in military and police contexts, which are not in keeping with solving the worlds problems.

4) Less bot breakage -- Less robustly built robots won't break down as much, and there will be fewer box bots on the field due to broken appendages.

5) More scoring. Defense is usually just blocking bots movement, and that's not very public spectator friendly compared to scoring. The crowd cheers when a score happens, but not so much when a great defensive move happens.

6) Highlights cooperation -- FIRST has tried various ways to put the cooperation part of coopertition onto the field and with the exception of 2014, most have had at best mixed results in terms of acceptance.

7) Playoff rounds -- Alliances would be 6 teams or more likely 7 or 8 with six playing) for the 6v0 model or 3-4 teams for the 2 x 3v0 model. Playoffs can be multiple rounds with two or three plays per round, and alliance's best round (or sum of rounds) determines subset of teams that advance to next round. Final round is two alliances.

8) Board games (and to a lesser extent video games) have an increasing number of cooperative gaming models.

Downsides:

1) People like head to head offense+defense competition. With the 2 x 3v0 model, you would still get head to head, just no defense.

2) Less opportunity for epic 'fix it' in limited time and other teams helping you fix it scenarios. But things will still break and need fixing with incidental collisions and field wall/element collisions.

Even if this isn't the 2015 game, I think the 2 x 3v0 model is well worth considering for the future.

[MooreteP]

Originally Posted by The_ShamWOW88

Ow....

Originally Posted by K-Dawg157

This was a little rude... netiquette is nice. Some people do celebrate Christmas Eve and don't have time to read 400+ posts to see what's already been said, but still want their opinion out there...

You are correct. Me = hypocrite.
Please accept my apology.

[EricH]

Just to go completely off the deep end...

I suspect that FIRST has completely changed their game design process. The game is now designed in 2 weeks or less, from the reactions to a randomly-chosen hint upon release. Boy are you guys in for it...

[The_ShamWOW88]

that deep end is long gone....

[mrnoble]

I would venture the following, based on the official hint and the other tidbits of real info we have:

1) 95% that the clue is the name of the game. Expect "______ Delta" or "Delta _______" to be our game this year.

2) Better than 50% that we will play with a triangular game piece.

3) 50% that there was a major streamlining of rules and game design.

4) 25% that whatever we play, it is high up.

5) Slightly better than 0%: hockey or football.

6) 0%: that the field will be reconfigured, or that we will have more robots on the field, or a 6v0 game. Ain't gonna happen.

[Anthony Galea]

Originally Posted by mrnoble

I would venture the following, based on the official hint and the other tidbits of real info we have:

1) 95% that the clue is the name of the game. Expect "______ Delta" or "Delta _______" to be our game this year.

2) Better than 50% that we will play with a triangular game piece.

I really don't understand the obsession with triangles. Just because Delta is the symbol for change doesn't mean it is 95% possible the clue.

[BlahMaster123]

'Game is coming'...

"Game of Drones".
This is what the game will be called.

This HAS to be it.

[Trevor4004]

Originally Posted by *Rachelle*

SUMMARY:

Another many people believe that the emphasis on the recycle bin means many past FRC games may be combined to create a new one.

Just some more food for thought here. And sorry if I'm restating something here, I read the vast majority of this thread at 3 in the morning so I may not remember everything. I've seen a lot of stuff talking about recycling a game or two in order to create a new one. However, what I'm thinking is what if they recycle elements from 3 games to make a new one? This could make the recycle theory and the triangle theory work with one another. Like it has already been said (many many many times), the recycling bin did have a triangle on it, so maybe that means that the triangle and recycling are related?

Of course, the recycling bin could also be a red herring. When I originally saw the video and starting reading this thread, I didn't think the recycling bin was that important. FIRST is a rather forward-thinking organization, so maybe they simply have someone recycling a paper instead of throwing it away because it is better for the environment. They do produce energy efficient light bulbs for all the teams to sell, so it might not be a stretch to think that the recycling bin is just to encourage people to recycle and actually has nothing to do with the game.

Like I said, just some food for thought.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays everyone!

[mrnoble]

Originally Posted by 3175student17

I really don't understand the obsession with triangles. Just because Delta is the symbol for change doesn't mean it is 95% possible the clue.

[mrmummert]

Just playing around with a game name using the word "Change"

Change Up
Change Challenge
Lane Change
Change Over
Maze Change or Change Maze
Change Chase

And for some reason i keep playing David Bowie's "Changes" in my head.