Possibility for 2016 Game

[GeeTwo]

Originally Posted by Loose Screw

I remember FTC's Bowled Over game had a thing with magnets in some of the rubber balls, and Ring-it-Up had weighted rings that would give a score multiplier if placed in a different location. Both of these scoring elements went largely unused. These are interesting ideas, but would have to be tested further in FTC to make it into FRC.

Why would a game element have to be tested in FTC before being introduced into FRC? FTC just came to Louisiana this past year and I have not been involved with it at all, but this sounds backwards to me.

Originally Posted by Loose Screw

Some programming challenges that are common in FRC and FTC are reflective tape and IR beacons. Both of these are used every year now, some more useful than others (who used the reflective tape on the auto totes this year?).

The reflective tape on the yellow totes would only be useful for a robot that picked up the totes from the long side, and that was interested in maneuvering around the RCs to get to them. The vast majority of teams picked up from the short side this year, and it was more useful to pick one or more of them up, and much easier to just knock the RC aside than to maneuver around them, then go to the long end of the tote (or rotate the tote). Reflective tape is much more likely to be used for goals and objects which are far away and which the robot must drive towards from a distance or launch a projectile into.

[fargus111111111]

Originally Posted by MaGiC_PiKaChU

I would be surprised... Did you notice how they break up so easily? Would make such a huge mess on the field, and they would have to replace them more often


Edit: I think Football would make a great game

while the pool noodles could and did get shredded, the foam balls that FIRST has used time and time again also shred nicely in shooters, especially high power, sudden acceleration shooters. We use our B-Ball shooter for demos and always leave a rather large pile of orange dust.

[bsaleh03]

Dont want to sound like a heckler, but are you just pulling ideas out of the blue, or is there actual evidence? From the way i see it, FRC makes sure that every game is a surprise, and everything can change. While i am extremely ecstatic about robotics 2016, i dont think we'll get anywhere with random guesses.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by bsaleh03

Dont want to sound like a heckler, but are you just pulling ideas out of the blue, or is there actual evidence? From the way i see it, FRC makes sure that every game is a surprise, and everything can change. While i am extremely ecstatic about robotics 2016, i dont think we'll get anywhere with random guesses.

You obviously haven't been on CD very long. Trust me. It only gets worse from here.

I'll make this short: As soon as the season is over and the offseasons begin, various people start spreading rumors and speculating with absolutely no basis in fact on what the next game will be. Happens every year, regular as clockwork (though some folks try to start it early...).

Every now and again, Frank (the Director of FRC) will drop "non-hints" in the FRC blog (such as the fact that he knows what the game is), which fuel said rumors and speculations.

'Long about registration, someone asks when the hint will come out (answer: sometime in December by tradition). The hint is the official "guess the game, good luck" red herring. If we're (un)lucky, we get more than one. But until Kickoff, nobody* knows what the game will be.


*Unless you count the GDC and whoever has to build field elements--but if you can actually pry it out of them early, they won't be doing that for very long.

[Loose Screw]

Originally Posted by GeeTwo

Why would a game element have to be tested in FTC before being introduced into FRC? FTC just came to Louisiana this past year and I have not been involved with it at all, but this sounds backwards to me.



The reflective tape on the yellow totes would only be useful for a robot that picked up the totes from the long side, and that was interested in maneuvering around the RCs to get to them. The vast majority of teams picked up from the short side this year, and it was more useful to pick one or more of them up, and much easier to just knock the RC aside than to maneuver around them, then go to the long end of the tote (or rotate the tote). Reflective tape is much more likely to be used for goals and objects which are far away and which the robot must drive towards from a distance or launch a projectile into.

FTC games usually have more scoring options so they can try new things. They can add in a weighted ring bonus or magnetic ball if there already is a solid way to earn points. If teams used those elements for a competitive advantage and won with them, I'm sure we would see that carry over to FRC. They could have easily weighted a few of the landfill totes to offer a bonus like Ring-it-Up did.

To look at the amount of scoring options, compare Cascade Effect to Recycle Rush. Cascade Effect had the most autonomous options I have ever seen in a game. You earned points for moving down a ramp, placing a ball in one or two rolling goals, moving 1-3 rolling goals into your zone, placing a ball in the center goal, and knocking over the kickstand. Recycle Rush you earned points for moving all three robots to the auto zone, moving three RCs to the auto zone, moving all three auto totes into the zone, and stacking all three auto totes in the zone.

For scoring in general, FRC usually focuses on one element where FTC offers multiple objectives. Recycle Rush was entirely dependent on stacking totes. There were teams that specialized in capping, but they couldn't do much if they didn't have a stack to cap. Aeriel Assist was entierly scoring a ball. Ultimate Ascent had two options, Frisbees and pyramid. Cascade Effect had scoring balls into tubes and pushing goals around. Block Party had scoring blocks into a teeter-totter, spinning a crank shaft, and lifting your robot off the ground. Ring-it-Up had a tic-tac-toe peg score board to place rings, weighted rings for a score multiplyer, and lifting your partner up.
FTC has been sort of a "testing grounds" for FRC. Some examples of this include an extra partner for finals and using two fields (MSC 2015).

When it comes to autonomous features, IR beacons have been used in FTC the last few years just as reflective tape has been used in FRC. Both are staples in each game, some years being more useful than others. This year Recycle Rush had the weakest use of reflective tape. The totes started in a set position, so teams used that in their programming. Teams would have used the tape more if the totes were in random places.

I hope I have answered your concerns.

[tindleroot]

Originally Posted by Loose Screw

FTC has been sort of a "testing grounds" for FRC.

I see it as a two-way street. FTC and FRC have both incorporated elements of each other. For example, Ring it Up shows obvious analogies to FRC Triple Play (Tic Tac Toe bonuses) and Logomotion (rings on pegs) and FTC Cascade effect brings back the moving goals that were popular in FRC in 2001, 2002, and 2004. Of course, the games have differences, but FTC is not just a testing ground for FRC, FTC also uses elements that have been proven by FRC.

[Loose Screw]

Originally Posted by tindleroot

I see it as a two-way street. FTC and FRC have both incorporated elements of each other. For example, Ring it Up shows obvious analogies to FRC Triple Play (Tic Tac Toe bonuses) and Logomotion (rings on pegs) and FTC Cascade effect brings back the moving goals that were popular in FRC in 2001, 2002, and 2004. Of course, the games have differences, but FTC is not just a testing ground for FRC, FTC also uses elements that have been proven by FRC.

You're right, I forgot about that side. It does work both ways. I just hope that they learn from Bowled Over and always put a height cap on robots. Could you imagine a FRC robot playing a Bowled Over type game? That would be crazy.

[tindleroot]

Originally Posted by Loose Screw

You're right, I forgot about that side. It does work both ways. I just hope that they learn from Bowled Over and always put a height cap on robots. Could you imagine a FRC robot playing a Bowled Over type game? That would be crazy.

For the lifting aspect, that's called FRC 1999 Double Trouble. For the quickest example I can find, check out this. Floppies (round discs) would score more points at the end of a match based on the height off the ground (sound familiar?)

[Matt C]

Originally Posted by tindleroot

For the lifting aspect, that's called FRC 1999 Double Trouble. For the quickest example I can find, check out this. Floppies (round discs) would score more points at the end of a match based on the height off the ground (sound familiar?)

Yes, I remember the horrors of 10 foot tall robots falling over.

[tindleroot]

Originally Posted by Matt C

Yes, I remember the horrors of 10 foot tall robots falling over.

Our 15-foot robot fell over a few times in 2005, too.

[pmangels17]

In the spirit of these types of threads, I haven't read anything in this thread except the first and last pages, but I'd like to pose an idea that I consider original but that somebody mentioned a few pages back.

[EDesbiens]

Nothing else to add...

[Maximillian]

Originally Posted by EDesbiens

Attachment 19243
Nothing else to add...

We can all hope

[Peyton Yeung]

Originally Posted by EDesbiens

Attachment 19243
Nothing else to add...

I don't think I could play another soccer game again

[EDesbiens]

Originally Posted by Peyton Yeung

I don't think I could play another soccer game again

Love that comment