Go to Post ALL technology is run on 'Magic Smoke' contained within the device. As everyone knows, whenever the magic smoke is released, the device ceases to function. - kmcclary [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > FIRST > General Forum
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
Reply
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 3 votes, 5.00 average. Display Modes
  #46   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 14-04-2003, 13:43
JP_1163's Avatar
JP_1163 JP_1163 is offline
mentor
#1163 (Trojan Horses)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: Faulkton, SD
Posts: 90
JP_1163 will become famous soon enoughJP_1163 will become famous soon enough
Lightbulb

A few ideas from a novice FIRST'er (2 years)
1. The autonomous mode will stay and may increase as the game/years goes on. This forces programmers and builder/designers to work together (team building).

2. If the 2x2 format stays then the idea could be that each team member must do a particular job in autonomous mode before the "game" can begin. This could include moving, stacking, grasping, climbing, etc. Unless and until both teams completed the initial "task" the alliance is moot ( I can hear the screaming now).

3. Provide multiple problems within a game (on one side of the field) for 30-60 seconds (more autonomous mode) and then allow some sort of inter-alliance competition for the last 60-90 seconds (human play)

Just my thoughts. No offense intended or implied to any other poster or team.

Reply With Quote
  #47   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 14-04-2003, 15:23
DougHogg DougHogg is offline
Robot-A-Holic
FRC #0980 (The ThunderBots)
Team Role: Coach
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Rookie Year: 2002
Location: S. California
Posts: 324
DougHogg has much to be proud ofDougHogg has much to be proud ofDougHogg has much to be proud ofDougHogg has much to be proud ofDougHogg has much to be proud ofDougHogg has much to be proud ofDougHogg has much to be proud ofDougHogg has much to be proud of
Next year...

I would like to see the qualifying points be the difference in scores between the winner and the loser. If you win 50 to 40, you get 10 points. If you win 20 to 10, you get 10 points.

The idea would be to encourage defense as well as offence, and do a way with any reason for opponents to make agreements.

True, that would give the loser a negative score but if that was a problem, each team could start out with 10000.

In the elimination rounds, I would definitely prefer going back to best 2 out of 3, although the above scoring system would help to make the second match more interesting.

True, experienced teams would then be obliged to get massive scores and new teams would have a rough time. However I prefer seeing the true relative strengths of the opponents as opposed to giving points to the other team. We can help equalize things for newer teams by giving them some better drive system components with different gearing choices, etc. This year's drill motor mounts and gear boxes were a step in that direction.

Hopefully FIRST will come up with a game with 3 or 4 of viable ways of getting points, so that the winning strategy isn't obvious. For example, I think this year's game would have been improved if it was harder to knock down the stacks created by robots. Maybe there could have been alcoves that robots could put their stacks in, but not human players.
__________________
FIRST Team 980, The ThunderBots
2002: S. California Rookie All Stars
2004: S. California: Regional Champion,
Championship Event: Galileo 2nd seed,
IRI: Competition Winner, Cal Games: Competition Winner
2005: Arizona: 1st seed
Silicon Valley: Regional Champion (Thanks Teams 254 and 22)
S. California: Regional Runners Up (Thanks Teams 22 and 968)
Reply With Quote
  #48   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 14-04-2003, 15:41
Sachiel7's Avatar
Sachiel7 Sachiel7 is offline
<Yes I managed to flip it
AKA: Shayne Helms
FRC #1132 (RAPTAR Robotics)
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Rookie Year: 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 541
Sachiel7 is just really niceSachiel7 is just really niceSachiel7 is just really niceSachiel7 is just really niceSachiel7 is just really nice
Send a message via AIM to Sachiel7
Well, I have a few thoughts...
If the game was 3 vs 3...and I'd like to play a 3v3 game , then it's time for First to enlarge the field. I think one issue this year was that the field turned out to be smaller than expected w/ the ramp in place (I know the field is about the same size as last year).
If we were going to do 3v3, then that would result in an IFI control system update, because more operating channels would be needed.
I do like the idea of disabling bots for a short amount of time during the game, but it probably would have to be limited to a certain amount of times for each alliance, and have a delay between when you could use them, so the game wasn't just bots sitting there the whole time.
I doubt the bins are here to stay guys, sorry.
The main reason they were used was for their stacking capability, and I highly doubt next year's game will involve stacking again, after seeing what happened this year.
I also think it might be a cool idea for first to scrap the QP score method, and just make your total score the QP. This would intensify the game play, and would make it easier for teams who are playing to know who's going to win, and about how many QP's they'll get. It's just too tricky to balance out a good score that easily during a match.
I think that if the game was fast-paced, where the score could easily shift from one alliance to the next, and the total score was your QP's (for both alliances) then the game would always be very interesting to watch, and play.
__________________
-=Sachiel7=-

There's no such thing as being too simple!
Look for Team #1132, RAPTAR Robotics at the VCU Regional this year!
Reply With Quote
  #49   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 14-04-2003, 16:23
Etbitmydog Etbitmydog is offline
Registered User
#0282 (Orange Crusher)
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Orlando
Posts: 50
Etbitmydog is an unknown quantity at this point
Send a message via AIM to Etbitmydog
Quote:
It's not hard or expensive to build a robot that travels up stairs. With the tri-star design all you need is 12 small tires, roller chain, and some sprockets.
It's A LOT harder than it looks to do what you're saying. Many forget, but FIRST did try a stair type object in 99. It was the puck. Just the stair moved which made the game even cooler!

Our team was the only team that year, to my knowledge from all the 300+- teams I saw at nationals that actually pulled off this triwheel design. We only had them on the front wheels though. It took most of our design and building time just to build them and since there was more materials, wheels and more sprockets that went into creating that, it obviously cost more than a regular drive.

Stairs that move again, that'd be really cool thing for FIRST to do.
Reply With Quote
  #50   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 14-04-2003, 16:27
Jeff Waegelin's Avatar
Jeff Waegelin Jeff Waegelin is offline
El Jefe de 148
AKA: Midwest Refugee
FRC #0148 (Robowranglers)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: Greenville, TX
Posts: 3,132
Jeff Waegelin has a reputation beyond reputeJeff Waegelin has a reputation beyond reputeJeff Waegelin has a reputation beyond reputeJeff Waegelin has a reputation beyond reputeJeff Waegelin has a reputation beyond reputeJeff Waegelin has a reputation beyond reputeJeff Waegelin has a reputation beyond reputeJeff Waegelin has a reputation beyond reputeJeff Waegelin has a reputation beyond reputeJeff Waegelin has a reputation beyond reputeJeff Waegelin has a reputation beyond repute
Quote:
Originally posted by Etbitmydog
Stairs that move again, that'd be really cool thing for FIRST to do.
What about something like an airplane staircase? Just a set of stairs on wheels... now that would be an interesting challenge. Maybe move the staircase so you can get up to the top of a raised platform?
__________________
Jeff Waegelin
Mechanical Engineer, Innovation First Labs
Lead Engineer, Team 148 - The Robowranglers
Reply With Quote
  #51   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 14-04-2003, 17:17
DanL DanL is offline
Crusty Mentor
FRC #0097
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: Somerville, MA
Posts: 682
DanL is just really niceDanL is just really niceDanL is just really niceDanL is just really niceDanL is just really nice
Send a message via AIM to DanL
Quote:
Originally posted by Sachiel7
I also think it might be a cool idea for first to scrap the QP score method, and just make your total score the QP. This would intensify the game play, and would make it easier for teams who are playing to know who's going to win, and about how many QP's they'll get. It's just too tricky to balance out a good score that easily during a match.
I don't know... with all the problems of fixing scores this year, I think this situation would make things worse....

"psst... hey buddy.... what say your team and my team work together in round 43 where we're up against each other.... this way, both of us get quite a few QP's and there's no need to be too concerned with the winner - the winner's going to get only slightly more points than the loser now that we've gotten away with that pesky 2x the losers score. C'mon, this year you really have nothing to lose! By working together instead of competing, you're sure to increase your rank even if you lose, cause whoever wins is going to get only slightly more points!"

Basically, I like the your-points-plus-2x-the-loser's points - that atleast SOME competition between teams. Without this, I think the problems of this year will just be worsened next year.
__________________
Dan L
Team 97 Mentor
Software Engineer, Vecna Technologies
Reply With Quote
  #52   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 14-04-2003, 17:26
Ryan Foley Ryan Foley is offline
Registered User
FRC #5687 (The Outliers)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: ME
Posts: 447
Ryan Foley has a reputation beyond reputeRyan Foley has a reputation beyond reputeRyan Foley has a reputation beyond reputeRyan Foley has a reputation beyond reputeRyan Foley has a reputation beyond reputeRyan Foley has a reputation beyond reputeRyan Foley has a reputation beyond reputeRyan Foley has a reputation beyond reputeRyan Foley has a reputation beyond reputeRyan Foley has a reputation beyond reputeRyan Foley has a reputation beyond repute
heres what we should have

frisbees

something other than the 2 v 2 format

different shape field

stairs

2 out of 3 eliminations format

i liked that earlier idea someone mentioned about using moblie stairs you have to move around to get to higher platforms

QPs = raw score
__________________
Ryan

FRC #5687: The Outliers [2015-?]
FRC #1995: Fatal Error [2007-2009]
FRC #350: Timberlane Robotics [2001-2004]

FRC/FLL volunteer since 2005
Reply With Quote
  #53   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 14-04-2003, 17:41
SarahB's Avatar
SarahB SarahB is offline
Registered User
no team
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Rookie Year: 2002
Location: Syracuse, NY
Posts: 231
SarahB has a spectacular aura aboutSarahB has a spectacular aura aboutSarahB has a spectacular aura about
Send a message via AIM to SarahB
Re: heres what we should have

Quote:
Originally posted by Foley350
frisbees
FURY's game design involved Frisbees. It was called Frisbee Frenzy. It also featured a large maze in the center that the drivers couldn't see into. I've attached the description for anyone interested in reading it.
Reply With Quote
  #54   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 14-04-2003, 18:09
dlavery's Avatar
dlavery dlavery is offline
Curmudgeon
FRC #0116 (Epsilon Delta)
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Rookie Year: 1996
Location: Herndon, VA
Posts: 3,176
dlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond repute
Quote:
Originally posted by Jeff_Rice
please read this, Dave Lavery!
Autonomous is fun!
I did.

It is!


-dave
Reply With Quote
  #55   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 14-04-2003, 18:34
MattB703 MattB703 is offline
Registered User
AKA: Matt
None #0703 (Team Pheonix)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Rookie Year: 1998
Location: Saginaw, MI
Posts: 233
MattB703 has much to be proud ofMattB703 has much to be proud ofMattB703 has much to be proud ofMattB703 has much to be proud ofMattB703 has much to be proud ofMattB703 has much to be proud ofMattB703 has much to be proud ofMattB703 has much to be proud ofMattB703 has much to be proud ofMattB703 has much to be proud of
Obsticle course

Imagine an obsitle course created from something cheap and low like 4x4 timbers. There would be some sort of goal to the game besides getting througt the course. Teams could use sensors or dead reconing to get throught the course in an early autonomous mode or simply drive over the obsticles.

Obviously this is not a complete game, just a concept.

MattB
Reply With Quote
  #56   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 14-04-2003, 19:02
Breanne M's Avatar
Breanne M Breanne M is offline
Ho Humm... Ho Ho Humm...
AKA: Bree: poor college student
None #0294 (Beach Cities Robotics)
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Rookie Year: 2002
Location: Redondo Beach, CA
Posts: 168
Breanne M is on a distinguished road
Send a message via AIM to Breanne M
Re: Next year...

Quote:
Originally posted by DougHogg
I would like to see the qualifying points be the difference in scores between the winner and the loser. If you win 50 to 40, you get 10 points. If you win 20 to 10, you get 10 points.

The idea would be to encourage defense as well as offence, and do a way with any reason for opponents to make agreements.
I really like that idea. I think it would be a lot of fun. a little more competative.
__________________
Team 294: Beach Cities Robotics

"If I could be the sun, I'd shine in your life. If I could be the rain, I'd rain from your eyes, and I'd wash away the emptiness you feel inside."
~Paul Weller, "As You Lean Into The Light"

"Boys will be boys and so will most middle aged men"

AIM: that13thday
Reply With Quote
  #57   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 15-04-2003, 02:55
sevisehda's Avatar
sevisehda sevisehda is offline
Registered User
#0666
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The South
Posts: 215
sevisehda is an unknown quantity at this point
Send a message via AIM to sevisehda
The problem with the difference being the winners score is that it encourages slaugters. The problem is FIRST wants close matches and no slauters that why you get part of your opponents score if you win, however the side issue is this causes collusion. It would be worse than raw score. Imagine the same match scored different ways.

Raw Score ..................... 50 - 40 ---> QP 50 - 40
Each teams plays there own game with some defense.

Difference ..................... 50 - 40 ---> QP 10 - -40
Each team would destroy the opposing alliances score the winner would want there opponents to score zero to maximize theres and the loser would want to kill the winners to minize there loss.

Current Method ............. 50 - 40 ---> QP 130 - 40
Each team trys to score as high as possible and collusion is a problem. Defense is played to prevent scoring.

My idea .......................... 50 - 40 ---> QP 90 - 45
Winner gets the total of all points scored, loser gets half. This would also suffer from collusion. The interesting part is a match of 60 - 30 would have the same QP. So you wouldn't even have to score points for your opponent to help them. And matches are close because the loser actually gets a higher QP than he would normally get.

I'd like to see autonomous mode stay next year, maybe be extended to 20 seconds. The problem of having it at the end would be so many teams had no auto mode this year. That the 1:40 mark would end up being the effective end of the match for most teams.
Reply With Quote
  #58   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 15-04-2003, 03:19
AlbertW's Avatar
AlbertW AlbertW is offline
harker robotics :. 1072
AKA: Aonic
#1072 (Harker Robotics)
Team Role: College Student
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 323
AlbertW is on a distinguished road
Send a message via AIM to AlbertW
I would like to see more replicated field parts, that are portable, like Zone Zeal's goals, and not like this year's central ramp structure. If your bot was a drivetrain bot last year, you didn't have to build anything. If it moved balls, you bought soccer balls. If it captured a goal or two, you built goals.

This year, unless your bot was meant ONLY to go under the bar (or stay on the opposing side) you had to test it on a ramp structure, which wasn't TOO hard, but factor in the wire mesh and the HDPE, and that's a steep testing field cost.
__________________

We were the first seeded first-year team at a first-year FIRST regional.
Reply With Quote
  #59   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 15-04-2003, 12:23
Soukup's Avatar
Soukup Soukup is offline
Animation Guru
AKA: David Soukup
no team
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Grand Valley State
Posts: 303
Soukup is on a distinguished road
allright, I finally have a small idea that I'd like to share, so let me know what you think.

the 4 on 2 thing wouldn't work because how would the finals work, it has to be a standard game every time. But I would personally like a 3 on 3 game, any more than that and it gets to crowded. But what would be really sweet is a game like football or soccer. Similar to rug rage (I think that was the second year's game). Except I'd leave it up to first to make some interesting twists. (Obstacles, etc.) I would however have this function.

Each team would be allowed 2 ROBOTS. That's right 2!!! By using the soccer idea, One would be able to switch their robot out if they wanted to, by driving it over a speed-bump or some other designated area. When the robot went into that area, another would be allowed to come out. SOrt of naving an offense and defense robot if you needed it. This could be ammended by having a 4 on 4 or 5 on 5 alliance, and by letting only 1 or 2 robots from an alliance on the field at 1 time. You would be able to let certain robots switch out throughout the match. Kinda like hockey.

Personally I'd just like to see a game like soccer, with robots that shoot and have to play goalies and defense, It would allow for much greater strategy.
__________________
soukupd_gv@hotmail.com

Team 74 Alumni

2003 Great Lakes, Midwest, and West Michigan Regional Animation Award Winner
Reply With Quote
  #60   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 15-04-2003, 13:56
TD78 TD78 is offline
Registered User
AKA: Tom Dolan
FRC #0078 (AIR Strike)
Team Role: Leadership
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Rookie Year: 2002
Location: Middletown, RI
Posts: 361
TD78 has a brilliant futureTD78 has a brilliant futureTD78 has a brilliant futureTD78 has a brilliant futureTD78 has a brilliant futureTD78 has a brilliant futureTD78 has a brilliant futureTD78 has a brilliant futureTD78 has a brilliant futureTD78 has a brilliant futureTD78 has a brilliant future
I like the 2v2 format and I think that the automonous part of the match should somehow be reincorporated into next years game. However, I didnt like how the game was set up this year. It emphasized too much on hard hitting (robots, bins, etc) rather than the finesse I thought I would be seeing (stacking). Although I dont have an idea for next years game, I would like to see something that makes teams think and not just build a drivetrain and go around and hit things.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2002 game prediction contest!!! Ken Leung Rumor Mill 41 31-12-2007 18:18
2004 Game, and LEGO similarities... Sachiel7 Rumor Mill 7 15-09-2003 20:43
pic: 2004 Game Revealed! CD47-Bot Extra Discussion 28 12-09-2003 12:08
What changes to this year's game...? DougHogg General Forum 16 20-04-2003 15:35
Ok, so YOU design the 2003 game... dlavery General Forum 157 07-01-2003 23:55


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:04.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi