2004 Game

[Koci]

I mentioned this in another thread, but since it has become the predominant discussion in this one, I thought I would mention it again.

The ultimate scoring system would be one that discourages both all-out slaughters by one team, and also collusion.

What could possibly provide this? It's quite simple: go back to the way nearly every sporting event does scoring. Base it on winning instead of points as the main factor for ranking.

The initial problem for this is that it still allows for one team to win while destroying the other team's score.

This is solved through a tie-breaking format. If rankings are determined by the W/L column, at every event, there will be many teams tied for the same ranking, as there are limited amount of matches (for example, 4 teams may be undefeated by the end of the competition). To break the tie, use a system similar to the 2002 game, where whoever has ALLOWED their opposing alliances to score the most points is ranked higher.

In this situation, collusions are useless, since the main thing that matters is winning. However, teams are not encouraged to destroy everything their opponents have, as these points are what will eventually determine their exact rank later.

[Sachiel7]

Yeah, I can see your point.
My QP method probably isn't too good of an idea.
But basically what I'm saying is, FIRST should try and come up with a driver-friendly QP scoring method.
It's just too tricky when your'e driving within a 2:00 or 1:45 time frame, and focused on a task, to figure out how to level the score out to increase your QP's.
Also, it was difficult in this years game to shift points from one alliance to the next; most of the time, you just removed bins from the scoring area unstead of taking them over to your side.
I think Zone Zeal had a good format in that it was fairly easy for teams to transfer the points back and forth between alliances.
It made a good battle for points.

[cybermind]

I don't think that just because I've experienced one competition...and won so cal regional... I now know exactly what the perfect game is but here are some things I really want to see in the future:

Hex field: this would complement the 3 vs 3 aliance pairing. Also there is no need to change the elimination alliances. If one robot breaks, u r just at an disavantage.

I like the scoring zone idea, and each zone would be alternating around the hexagon.

Robots start in autonomous in YOUR zone.

In the center of the field there is a raised hexagonal platform, like this year ramp, where a robot may have to climb, go up stairs, or ramps, depending on which zone they are in.

I like the king of the hill idea, but it was worth way too much this year, they would have to have a better award for it, maybe a max of 3x multiplier if u have all 3 robots on top. Giving flat points for the ramp this year made it so the entire game a pushing match on top.

I think that the win/lose system is much better than points...with opponents points being deciding factors between tie breakers...(thanks Koci)

Also more human player involment sounds like it would be a good idea.

Now for the scoring objects, or obstacles, I am not sure about, but maybe each object can have your aliances colors on it, and you score only when you put it in the other teams scoring zone...sounds almost like chinese checkers...

Just a few ideas I dreamt up on the plane ride home... comments really appreciated!

[Ryan Dognaux]

oo I just had an Idea...

It'd be cool if we had to throw something through something else to score points, such as possibly shooting frisbee-like discs through a large vertical ring, or throwing small balls through a ring.

[DougHogg]

Originally posted by TEAM_74
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.

I was thinking along the similar lines. One great thing about a game with one ball is that it is TV/video friendly since a camera can easily follow the action. The challenge is to make it exciting. I think that one of the things that makes soccer, football or basketball exciting is the idea of team members passing the ball to each other, and the other team trying to intercept the pass. We could have robots shooting or boucing the ball to each other, or attempting to "dribble" it down the field.

The other thing I would like to see in a game is multiple ways of scoring, so the game is less predictable. I think it was unfortunate this year that being on the ramp at the end greatly overshadowed making stacks.

I think one cool way to add multiple scoring methods with a single-ball game would be to have goals as in soccer but also hoops as in basketball. Teams could go for a basic robot that could push a ball into the soccer goal or for a basket shooting robot. This would then call for robots that could block ground shots and hoop shots.

Autonomous could be a rush to get the ball in the middle. There could even be a ramp in the middle, which adds to the challenge for teams building tall robots, since they risk tipping on the ramp.

We would want to have high walls and a net over the playing field to prevent the ball from going out of bounds.

Human players could be responsible for putting the ball back into play after a goal.

Also I think we would have to have rules against a robot pulling the ball inside itself.

Any other ideas on how to make a single-ball game exciting?

[Andy Baker]

Originally posted by AnimeRaul234
oo I just had an Idea...

...or throwing small balls through a ring.

Hey there's an idea.

(for you veterans who have discussed this topic many times before)

Basketball !!!

Two words: m-e-d-i-a f-r-i-e-n-d-l-y

That should be our "prime directive" for all future games. - to make the game media-friendly (or... again... for you old-timers, our "prive" directive)

heh... sorry to go over so many newer member's heads on this, but it is funny, really. If you want more info on this idea, look at this thread:

Prive directive thread from 2001

Andy B.

[FotoPlasma]

The problem you'd have with a projectile-based game is spectator safety. The smaller and heavier the projectile, the more risk there is to the audience, if something goes wrong.

It all really depends on how the game is set up, but I have my doubts about next season's game being based on projectiles.

This is not to say that they can't play a part in the game, just look at 2002's game.

[DougHogg]

Originally posted by Koci
The ultimate scoring system would be one that discourages both all-out slaughters by one team, and also collusion.

I think one of the reasons for a Qualifying Point System was so that very dominant teams couldn't just coast through a match where it was obvious after 10 seconds that they were going to win. It then gets boring for everyone to watch.

That is part of the reason why I came up with the idea of basing qualifying points on the scoring gap. Even if you are ahead by 10 points, you would still be trying to improve your score.

True, that encourages "all-out slaughters" by better teams. I think the way to get around that is to give new teams components that makes them competitive. This year, we saw a lot of rookie teams doing very well. That could be enhanced even further.

There is something to be said for "letting the chips fall where they lay", by which I mean allowing teams to see where their robot really stands. True they might feel badly if they lose by a lot, but I doubt if it would be worse than seeing their robot laying on its back for the whole match as sometimes occurred this year.

Let's make it a genuine competition and never mind faking it to try to avoid one team dominating another. If our team gets dominated, then we will be making changes so it doesn't happen the next time.

The drive train is the most critical part of making a robot competitive. If new teams have good drive train components (enhanced versions of this year's gear boxes and motor mounts) with a choice of gearing, they will be competitive. Then if we build multiple levels into the game, they will be able to contribute to their alliance.

Also there are other ways to give an advantage to basic robots. Going under the bar this year was easy for robots that were low, such as those that weren't stacking. That advantage helped the rookie teams.

We were rookies last year, and personally, it would have been an insult to us to know that we were being given points because we were lousy. I would much rather have a team just play their best against us and the score be the real score.

That is the way it is in any competition that I have ever seen. You do your best. And if you lose, you work on improving.

In short, let's get real, and never mind any pretense. And if the rookies have trouble competing, improve the kit and change the basic game elements. But let's have the score be the real score.

[Duke 13370]

Didn't those projectiles and the real time scoring really screw up the game a couple years back when a team just held the ball in place and moved it in and out of the goal really fast? I don't remember the year, but i've heard about all the probblems caused.

[Ryan Dognaux]

Originally posted by FotoPlasma
The problem you'd have with a projectile-based game is spectator safety. The smaller and heavier the projectile, the more risk there is to the audience, if something goes wrong.

It all really depends on how the game is set up, but I have my doubts about next season's game being based on projectiles.

This is not to say that they can't play a part in the game, just look at 2002's game.

Well the "projectiles" wouldn't necessarily have to be balls. I know at one point one of the games contained "floppies"... something of that manner could be used, like a frisbee of some kind.

[Duke 13370]

The drive train is the most critical part of making a robot competitive. If new teams have good drive train components (enhanced versions of this year's gear boxes and motor mounts) with a choice of gearing, they will be competitive. Then if we build multiple levels into the game, they will be able to contribute to their alliance.

Don't defend the drivetrain FIRST supplied us with, we're a 4th year team with decent facilities and financing, and we didn't move well till the second day of the second regional. If FIRST wan'ts to even it out a bit, give us gearsets for 4 motor drives made out of metal; the one this year was weak (both in power and in construction).

[DougHogg]

Originally posted by Duke 13370

quote (originally posted by DougHogg):
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The drive train is the most critical part of making a robot competitive. If new teams have good drive train components (enhanced versions of this year's gear boxes and motor mounts) with a choice of gearing, they will be competitive. Then if we build multiple levels into the game, they will be able to contribute to their alliance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't defend the drivetrain FIRST supplied us with, we're a 4th year team with decent facilities and financing, and we didn't move well till the second day of the second regional. If FIRST wan'ts to even it out a bit, give us gearsets for 4 motor drives made out of metal; the one this year was weak (both in power and in construction).

I agree that these should be improved upon. That's why I said "enhanced versions of this year's gear boxes" and "with a choice of gearing". We can keep enhancing them until they work.

(We used the drill motor mounts for our telescoping arm and it did fine.)

Last year, the kit didn't include any motor mounts or gearing sets. I applaud FIRST for moving in that direction this year. I think that is the best way to balance the game for new teams, as opposed to using the scoring system to do so.

[Aaron Lussier]

I've got a field in the works with Walls, Stairs, a Pyramid and the Big balls from 2002 hehehe, Now only if I knew Adobe so I could draw it better... Stupid Paint

[Ryan Foley]

Originally posted by Andy Baker
Hey there's an idea.

(for you veterans who have discussed this topic many times before)

Basketball !!!

Two words: m-e-d-i-a f-r-i-e-n-d-l-y

That should be our "prime directive" for all future games. - to make the game media-friendly (or... again... for you old-timers, our "prive" directive)
Andy B.

my idea i came up with was

2 v 1 setup
PLAYING FIELD
rectangular field
at one end are the blue bots (with blue drivers stations behind them)
red bot at other end (with the red driver station behind them)
on red side is something similar to a soccer goal (imagin a 3ft tall box with the side facing the blue end open) spanning the width of the field. On top is a another goal, but shorter in width. There would be a line 10ft from the edge of the goal. Blue bots may not drive beyond (so they may have arms that extend into the red zone)

IN the blue zone are a bunch of frisbees, yes, frisbees. The blue bots basically have to get the firsbees in the goals. They must either do this by launching them or using a long arm, as ble bot cant touch the field floor beyond that line.

scoring
BLUE ALLIANCE
2 points for each frisbee in the lower red goal
4 points for each one in the top one
10 points for each robot positioned wholy within the starting square they started in
(HP frisbees in goals are worth an extra point each)

RED TEAM
3 ponts for each frisbee not in one of their goals
15 points for having their robot wholy within its starting square
(HP firsbees not in goal are worth an extra point each)

PROS: modularity is a key aspect, as you have to b ale to do both offense and defense positions.

SPECTATOR FRIENDLY: like 1 sided soccer, but with frisbees

HUMAN PLAYERS: they would only be on the blue alliance located in postions next to the blue driver stations. HPs would try to get the firsbees the start with in the goals

only thing i cant think of is incorpertating autonomy. Perhaps it would be used at the end of the match. AT the switch to auto mode robots would not be allowed in their start zones and the auto program would have to get them back. Thats all i could think of
i'll load a field drawing soon

[Erin Rapacki]

sounds like one crazy competition

it would be fun to watch, sounds like a good base plan to start building up more rules, regulations, and strategic aspects

anyone else to build off this?

ByE

erin