2015 HINT DISCUSSION

[MaadHatter]

Originally Posted by Canon reeves

I think the GDC has shifted towards spectator/sport orientated games that aren't hard to understand. In games like logomotion, it wouldn't really be as interesting to someone who doesn't understand the scoring system, where as in Ultimate Ascent, its easy to tell. The more frisbees you shoot in the goal the more points, and the higher you climb on the pyramid the more points. I think they want to capture the kind of hype that sports get, and the edge of the seat matches that are the result of real time scoring and well matched alliances.

This is a really good point, but not all sports require some sort of projectile motion into a goal, although a lot of them do. After all the projectile games, I think FIRST may be trying to find a balance between interesting everyone and having a non-projectile based competition.

[Kevin Sevcik]

I have no where near the time or patience to catch up with this year's runaway speculation train, so I'm just throwing this out without checking to see if anyone else has argued it.

I think the suggestion that they're recycling 2014 is a pretty persuasive one. My intuition on this is mainly driven by the very obvious recycling of the manual, and the combination of the history lesson in game changes and Frank boldly declaring that change is coming.

Think about it. The one absolute constant through the years is that each game is radically different from the previous year's. It's the ONE thing we all take for granted. Even the water game jokes that assume nearly everything about robot design will change are assuming the game is going to be different.

There's really only two ways to take Frank's statement. Option B (for boring) is that the game/robot/field is going to be radically different this year. This is not news. If I time traveled back here from two weeks in the future and declared that the 2015 game was totally new and different, I would be met with a resounding chorus of "and?"

Option M (for meta) is that Frank's statement means a change is coming to the fundamental nature of how things are done in FRC. Which really is news and surprising, as evidenced by the controversy of a recycled game.

Given that the game hints actually do have informational content and option B is completely lacking in information, I'm kind leaning towards option M...

[HelloRobot]

It will be interesting to figure out exactly what the hint means. I think "big changes" (like changing the field design or number of robots on an alliance) would be drastic and unlikely, since I think FRC's format works fine. Still, we're innovators, soooo maybe there's going to be an emphasis on change and improving something.

If not, I have another theory... (for laughs, of course ) https://twitter.com/Team5412/status/547804129536782336

[Duffy509]

Originally Posted by EricH

I would find it EXTREMELY out of FIRST's character for robots of Dozer's class to have no role at all.

Dozer is generally regarded as the BLT/BoxBot class of robots. These are your very low-resource* teams who have a tough time building a basic robot--FIRST always attempts to have something that they can do to be a positive contribution to an alliance. Always.

I think that my earlier text is causing confusion in what I meant in my last post. I don't mean by any means that FIRST might be getting rid of low-resource bots that rookie teams can easily manage. I mean that maybe the game is leaving the ground level. For example (not an actual assumption of what the game might be but it would be something different) if the game was played with game pieces that were suspended above the field on strings. A rookie team could jut as easily build a chassis and simply put long poles on top to push around the pieces.

I agree that an elimination of these kit bots plus one or two parts would severely cut the number of new teams for FIRST and hope that this clears up my earlier statement.

[GeeTwo]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

Given that the game hints actually do have informational content

Well, that's really the point, isn't it? Last year's clue basically led to the single word "Assist", which was just part of the name of the game. The "assists" in the game were not quite what any of the three sports call assists, in particular in that:
1) they counted the scoring "athlete" as being an assist
2) two other "athletes" could assist a single score
3) "assists" actually increased the value of the score

What "change" means in terms of game dynamics is obviously a great source of speculation. One of the big things mentioned is that alliance assignments will shift mid-match. I find that intriguing, but dubious. "Change" could be something as simple as last year's "hot goals" or something like a "forced" endgame - where the scoring for the first portion of the game and the second portion of the game are fundamentally different. Heck, it could be about counting the value of a pile of coins. My virtual money is on "change" referring to nothing mentioned in any CD post, including this one.

[gavmac928]

Originally Posted by GeeTwo

What "change" means in terms of game dynamics is obviously a great source of speculation. One of the big things mentioned is that alliance assignments will shift mid-match. I find that intriguing, but dubious. "Change" could be something as simple as last year's "hot goals" or something like a "forced" endgame - where the scoring for the first portion of the game and the second portion of the game are fundamentally different. Heck, it could be about counting the value of a pile of coins. My virtual money is on "change" referring to nothing mentioned in any CD post, including this one.

I can definitely see what you mean, that the hint could simply be change. "Change is coming" could mean less that there is a fundamental change in the rules, and more that there will be a change in something in every match, or even both. I like the idea some people have proposed that there will be two game pieces. To take it another step, what if there was one game piece at the start of the match, then halfway through, as pieces are scored, instead of those pieces being returned to the field, new, different ones are put on in their place? That would make for both a major fundamental change, and change within each match.

[superlizardmo]

I think something that hasn't gotten a lot of attention in this thread is one possible explanation of the significance of the repeated footage. The year for which the game is not shown is '99 which is also Wayne Gretzky's hockey number. To quote the Wikipedia page on him, "The NHL retired his jersey number 99 league-wide, making him the only player to receive this honour". Does this point to a hockey game? I think it might. This game could be played by allowing teams to interact with, but not possess the pucks making the game a lot more like actual hockey than a shooting game.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Duffy509

I don't mean by any means that FIRST might be getting rid of low-resource bots that rookie teams can easily manage. I mean that maybe the game is leaving the ground level. For example (not an actual assumption of what the game might be but it would be something different) if the game was played with game pieces that were suspended above the field on strings. A rookie team could jut as easily build a chassis and simply put long poles on top to push around the pieces.

Let's see... Rookies could theoretically manage any one of the following:
2010: push a soccer ball into a goal
2011: launch a minibot
2012: balance a bridge
2013: low goal points, at 1 point each, OR FCS blocker
2014: low goal/assist

How many of those require adding something to the chassis?

Let's make it easier. How many do NOT require adding something to the chassis?

*crickets*

Right. A box on wheels, with no further improvements, has typically been extremely non-competitive. Something has to be added--something simple, as simple as a bar between the wheels (2010), or an armchair (2014)--in order to be more than a nuisance to all who partner with or play against you. This means adding something, usually quite simple, and yet many teams are unable--or unwilling--to do that, or lack the means (or desire) to do it effectively.

Most teams go the opposite way, and this is where I think they run into trouble: They aim too high. They'll go high goal only, without considering that a quickly-dropped low goal can be better. That's all fine and dandy, mind you, but often those newer/lower-resource teams just can't figure out that maybe the top area isn't quite in range yet... so they should aim just a smidgen lower, but still strive for more. But those teams that aim too high end up being about as much competitive use as a box on wheels (which, don't get me wrong, can still be pretty effective--but it has to be used right).



On another note...
I think you're on to something with that game idea. There's that 5' long box in the KOP... What if it's some attachment that must be used in some way to manipulate the game pieces?

[Ginger Power]

Whoops looked at the wrong page!

[kcy0511]

Originally Posted by superlizardmo

I think something that hasn't gotten a lot of attention in this thread is one possible explanation of the significance of the repeated footage. The year for which the game is not shown is '99 which is also Wayne Gretzky's hockey number. To quote the Wikipedia page on him, "The NHL retired his jersey number 99 league-wide, making him the only player to receive this honour". Does this point to a hockey game? I think it might. This game could be played by allowing teams to interact with, but not possess the pucks making the game a lot more like actual hockey than a shooting game.

I like where this is going. It doesn't feel like rampant wild guesses that feel like the are being forced into the hint. Maybe the hint was '99 AND "Change is coming". We should refocus on collecting all the data we can from the hint video then we can analyze that data. You know, the scientific way. Just my 2 cents. (Pun intended)

[x86_4819]

Originally Posted by kcy0511

I like where this is going. It doesn't feel like rampant wild guesses that feel like the are being forced into the hint. Maybe the hint was '99 AND "Change is coming". We should refocus on collecting all the data we can from the hint video then we can analyze that data. You know, the scientific way. Just my 2 cents. (Pun intended)

+1

[Oblarg]

Originally Posted by kcy0511

I like where this is going. It doesn't feel like rampant wild guesses that feel like the are being forced into the hint. Maybe the hint was '99 AND "Change is coming". We should refocus on collecting all the data we can from the hint video then we can analyze that data. You know, the scientific way. Just my 2 cents. (Pun intended)

Just remember that not all the "data" are useful data.

[orangemoore]

Change is coming.

We should expect that anyways. Right now the possibilities of that change keeps me up at night.

Change is coming.

[Anthony Galea]

Originally Posted by superlizardmo

I think something that hasn't gotten a lot of attention in this thread is one possible explanation of the significance of the repeated footage. The year for which the game is not shown is '99 which is also Wayne Gretzky's hockey number. To quote the Wikipedia page on him, "The NHL retired his jersey number 99 league-wide, making him the only player to receive this honour". Does this point to a hockey game? I think it might. This game could be played by allowing teams to interact with, but not possess the pucks making the game a lot more like actual hockey than a shooting game.

The other thing to be considered is that in 1999, you had robots fighting for control on... a puck.

[alephzer0]

Originally Posted by superlizardmo

I think something that hasn't gotten a lot of attention in this thread is one possible explanation of the significance of the repeated footage. The year for which the game is not shown is '99 which is also Wayne Gretzky's hockey number. To quote the Wikipedia page on him, "The NHL retired his jersey number 99 league-wide, making him the only player to receive this honour". Does this point to a hockey game? I think it might. This game could be played by allowing teams to interact with, but not possess the pucks making the game a lot more like actual hockey than a shooting game.

Originally Posted by 3175student17

The other thing to be considered is that in 1999, you had robots fighting for control on... a puck.

and that Gretzky retired in 1999...