2004 Game

[Adam Krajewski]

In looking at many of the FIRST games of the past, I've come up with the following conclusions:

1. Points scored for robot position at the end of the match should be minimized or should be part of a multiplier.
10 points for hanging on the bar in 2000 was reasonable when compared with the 5 points for each of the 4 black balls. Similarly, in 1999, being on the puck did you no good without scoring other points. Just imagine the 2003 game if being on top of the ramp was only worth 10 points, or even 5 points. This would have put a much bigger emphasis on stacking. It also will avoid a "BattleBots" mentality in the mad scramble for end position.

2. Cooperation is good.
However, it is somewhat difficult to do while maintaining an exciting and easy to follow game. I think elements from the 2000-2003 games could be combined to form an exciting game that emphasizes teamwork as well as individual performance.

3. Qualifying rounds and elimination rounds should use similar scoring and strategy.
A strategy that scores a winning score in the qualifying rounds should be the same strategy that win the elimination rounds, such as with 2001, only in a competitive format. In previous years, 2002 is a great example, cooperation is thrown out the window due to the 'best of three' format. I think this was the idea behind the 2 match system used this year. It was somewhat effective, but I believe it could be improved upon. I think this will be the most challenging portion of the game design for 2004.

4. Scoring object should be (somewhat) easy to manipulate and points value should emphasize using it to score.
Bins were difficult for even the best stackers to orient for scoring. They were also far to fragile for bashing that took place in this year's game. Also, because stacks were so easy to topple and the points that could be scored with them were somewhat small when compared with the 25 you got for the ramp, fitting in with conclusion #1. Balls fit this description because they are easily collected. Even inner-tubes are much easier to handle than boxes. The boxes were also too large to be manipulated effectively into big enough stacks for high scores or in the quantity needed to overcome the 25 point ramp bonus.

5. Clever design solutions should be the goal, not traction.
The need for a 6 motor drivetrains and exotic traction materials over a well performing stacking assembly takes away from the spirit of the competition. The perfect example of this is the 2002 game.

6. Collusion and other (even accidental) illegal activities should be designed out of the game.
The game needs to be designed to minimize any illegal activities that could take place. Pre-made human player stacks, seeing as stacks were so difficult to make with scoring the way it was, makes collusion possible. In none of the other cooperative scoring games was a multiplier like this easily given at the beginning of a match. Similarly, box placement before the match was easily made illegal by simply accidentally tipping over a hastily built stack.

7. Human player's role should be less "sport-like".
The human player's strategic role this year, as opposed to basket shooting skills, was an improvement over the older games. Unique scoring objects also help to provide worth while human interaction with the robots. Desperation floppy tosses in 1999 were more exciting and enjoyable to watch than all the last second human player balls in 2000.

I am working on a game idea to bring these qualities together.
Number 3 is the one I am having the most problems with.

One idea I would love to see is a point multiplier for all of the teams on the field in a competitive (2 vs. 2 or 1 vs. 1 vs. 1 vs. 1, etc.) game format. The difficulty I'm facing with that is to make it attractive in the elimination rounds.

Adam