Official FIRST Stronghold Teaser!

[Hallry]

Originally Posted by Gibso23

I was thinking the same thing until further looking at the video and there seem to be a hint that there will be bumpers in the game

From when bumpers started in 2006 through 2009, they could be any color of your choice (they could also say other things in addition to your team number). Other means (flags, posts on the Lunacy trailers) were used to identify alliance members. It wasn't until 2010 that bumpers became regulated as blue and red to signify alliances.

[Caleb McCune]

Does anyone else think that the tower may be an objective in the game to come?

Edit: Also 2 flags were shown in the video, so a possibility of CTF?

Thoughts?

[Jacob Bendicksen]

Originally Posted by jcatt

Ok, So I don't usually post on these types of threads, (I don't think I have posted in general in over 2 years anyway) but I was talking with a fellow FIRST Alumni about the new game and something kinda struck me...

A few considerations first:

• The blueprint from the teaser is representative of the playing field.
• The suggestions of those previous that the driver stations are along the sides of the field instead of the ends.
• Some large central scoring platform as indicated in the blueprint.
• In the past few years it appears FIRST is trying to move teams into specializing more and limiting the ability for the "One Robot to Rule them All" teams.

So, you now have a field which is designed to limit the view of different positions of the driver station, where more defensive robots are placed on the side closes to the opponent alliance for a better view. While the more scoring oriented teams are in the middle and far positions. Trouble is this could cause chaos with the scheduling of the qualification rounds. (No defensive robots for the position, or all defensive robots, etc)

Now, it occurred to me that what if you implemented a class system for robots. You would have to pick your class at the start of the build season and the rules would be so different that it would be difficult to switch mid-season. You would also register at the event as that particular robot class and the scheduling system would be designed to accommodate one robot of each class per alliance. The class system would also be designed with tiered levels of robot complexity and/or game complexity, so only a particular class can achieve a specific game objective. If there are more robots in a particular class they get less matches so their average score counts much more that a lower populated class which gets a lot more matches. It also give the teams who pick the "easier" class, traditionally the smaller or less experienced teams a fairly good chance to play with the more advanced, powerhouse type teams who pick the top tier class.

Now the obligatory wildly unlikely supporting data from the teaser....

Rally your Kingdom - In recent Fantasy culture when Kingdoms when to "war" they would have different classes of combat: Calvary Knights, Archers, Footmen
Build Your Champion - In most RPG games where you pick your character (Champion) you are expected to select some specialization class.
Different colors of flags on the tents - Could indicate different classes of "soldier" as stated above

So there you have it. It was a fun little though experiment... Thinking completely outside the preconceptions of games gone past. Keeps the mind limber I suppose and in actual fact the more I think about it, the more it sounds awesome.

Anyway, enough from me spoiling the worthwhile conversation here. Have fun and I will see you all around game time!

P.S For all you scouting fanatics - Easier Scouting as you only have to look at the classes outside yourself and easier pick lists when you are confined to a specific set of robots for a particular role.

I love the idea of classes of robots, but it would severely limit the possible alliances. Especially at district events, you'd end up with the same teams playing together more often than you'd like. I'd much rather have a game (and I think it would be more likely for FIRST to build a game) where any team can play with any team, at least in theory.

There's enough room for specialization in any game -- no need for FIRST to enforce it.

[EricLeifermann]

Originally Posted by Jacob Bendicksen

I love the idea of classes of robots, but it would severely limit the possible alliances. Especially at district events, you'd end up with the same teams playing together more often than you'd like. I'd much rather have a game (and I think it would be more likely for FIRST to build a game) where any team can play with any team, at least in theory.

There's enough room for specialization in any game -- no need for FIRST to enforce it.

There were classes of robots in 2007. Alliances were not limited.....

[T3_1565]

Originally Posted by EricLeifermann

There were classes of robots in 2007. Alliances were not limited.....

what are these classes you speak of? teams made their own specialized bots but they were not FIRST regulated classes.

Specialists happen every year.

[notmattlythgoe]

Originally Posted by T3_1565

what are these classes you speak of? teams made their own specialized bots but they were not FIRST regulated classes.

Specialists happen every year.

FIRST regulated classes just won't work in a randomized match setup. In the manner that is being proposed.

[Christopher149]

Originally Posted by T3_1565

what are these classes you speak of? teams made their own specialized bots but they were not FIRST regulated classes.

Specialists happen every year.

Weight-restriction for height class. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rack_%27n_Roll

Class         I                II                   III
Height	48 in (1,219 mm)  60 in (1,524 mm)   72 in (1,829 mm)
Weight	120 lb (54 kg)    110 lb (50 kg)     100 lb (45 kg)

[EricLeifermann]

Originally Posted by Christopher149

Weight-restriction for height class. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rack_%27n_Roll

Class         I                II                   III
Height	48 in (1,219 mm)  60 in (1,524 mm)   72 in (1,829 mm)
Weight	120 lb (54 kg)    110 lb (50 kg)     100 lb (45 kg)

Exactly, in 2007 you had to pick a class based on how tall your robot was, and you were inspected based on which class you declared and could not change for the duration of the competition(you could change in between comps).

[pavong]

What about the robot in the video, anyone notice the eyes? They look alot like camera lenses, maybe robot vision will play a more important role in the game. Flag colour detection?

[OAXACA]

Moats are around castles.


Water Game Confirmed.

[BBray_T1296]

Originally Posted by Hallry

From when bumpers started in 2006 through 2009, they could be any color of your choice (they could also say other things in addition to your team number). Other means (flags, posts on the Lunacy trailers) were used to identify alliance members. It wasn't until 2010 that bumpers became regulated as blue and red to signify alliances.

I think the bumper rules as of lately were the correct step that should not be reversed. It is much easier to tell who is on what team at all times, from queueing to mid-match.

The only way I could see a return to any-bumper-color-goes is in two situations:
a) There are NO alliances whatsoever, everyone plays by themselves against everyone, so you already know bumper colors don't matter
b) There are pre-determined roles that each robot must play, say in a 3v3 match each robot has a "attacker" a "defender" and something else, which is permanent through the match. This would require up to 6 different indicators for a robot to have, and asking for 6 sets of bumpers is ridiculous, so they switch to something else (like flags)

[MikLast]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9PvIsZL4cg
newton skunk on point with the MLG

[GeeTwo]

Originally Posted by EricLeifermann

Exactly, in 2007 you had to pick a class based on how tall your robot was, and you were inspected based on which class you declared and could not change for the duration of the competition(you could change in between comps).

I read the robot rules for 2007 last month, and I don't recall a requirement (or massive benefit) to an alliance being composed of exactly one robot of each class; it was simply a rules trade-off for each team, so unless I missed something, this is quite different than the proposed class system.

[Harp98]

When you look at the characters in the video, its easy to see which are students vs the one who is the mentor (women in the purple robe). Then later in the video, from :36 to :44 you see what appears to be the drive team getting ready.

Now assuming the extra three represent the cheering stands it makes sense as mentioned earlier for the idea for no mentor drive coach, or even any drive coach at all, this is assuming the game has aspects that will have visual obstructions and dont want the drive team getting help.

Just my thoughts and first post

[JB987]

Originally Posted by MikLast

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9PvIsZL4cg
newton skunk on point with the MLG

Who in the heck has enough free time to put together something as cool as this mash up so quickly? Well done!