[Official 2005 Game Design] Radical Tournament Ideas

[Andrew]

I'm presuming the reason for this thread is to question everything and figure a way to make the FIRST robotics competition more spectator friendly.

So, why continuous 2:00 matches?

FIRST has somewhat broken up the matches (especially in 2003) by having human player time, then autonomous mode, then remote control.

Although the break up for autonomous mode kind of took the flow out of the game, this was not necessarily a bad idea.

So, why not extend this idea.

Have a series of 1:00 plays (say three) with a :30 robot reset between them.

For example, run 1:00 remote control, then stop. Robots are returned to starting position (but the field remains in its current state) in :30 (otherwise you have to time out or take a delay of game penalty).

Run a 1:00 remote control, then stop. Reset the field.

Run the final 1:00 remote control. Count score.

This would be more like the traditional American sports, football, baseball, basketball. Hence, American viewers would be more able to clue into the game. Also the drama between plays would build.

This would also keep the problem of robots going "wheels up" or getting disabled early in a match or getting entangled from determining the outcome of the match.

By giving :30 between matches, the coaches of the two alliance partners can plan out the next play, rather than having to adapt on the fly.

It would also allow the refs more time to consult and assess penalties or warn teams so that "play outside the rules" would be less likely to affect the outcome of a match.

It would further allow a more accurate "real time score" to be computed.

By allowing time between plays, the audience would have a chance to see the drama of a match build, play by play. If you think about most modern spectator sports, the "stop action" is as important as the action. Even the "continuous action" sports (soccer, hockey) have a kind of "stop action" as the ball or puck transfers from one side of the field to the other.