New Ideas for next year's competition

[sirbleedsalot]

I had an idea not for the game, but how to score it. Take those small electronic stickies that are on items in stores that make the beeper go off when you leave the store and attach them to the game piece. Then you could have instant reliable scoring by having the game go to a certain spot on the field and instead of a buzzer going of it could signal a light and a LCD that added up the points.

[sanddrag]

I really thought this was going to be the year for powerful and fast shifting drive systems because it was 6 robots on the same size (and flat) field. Especially with only 1 mechanism needed and a 3 lb higher weight limit. But was I ever wrong.

Anyway, FIRST gives everyone a really good gearbox that works very well. Because of that, I would like to see a game that really requires a drive system that goes above and beyond in order to be competitive. Zone Zeal pretty much had that, but let's have a game with even more emphasis on the drive system.

I know big arms are more fun to watch than pushing matches, but we need a return of the necessity for drive system fabrication/design/innovation/etc.

This year, there were too many teams using the kit gearbox for my liking. I like to see all sorts of different gearboxes.

While box on wheels robots aren't very exciting, neither is a different arm on the same box.

Giving a good gearbox in the kit was the right move but frankly I'm disappointed that 5 and 6 year teams are not striving for better with their drive system.

[Bill Gold]

Originally Posted by sanddrag

I really thought this was going to be the year for powerful and fast shifting drive systems because it was 6 robots on the same size (and flat) field. Especially with only 1 mechanism needed and a 3 lb higher weight limit. But was I ever wrong.

Anyway, FIRST gives everyone a really good gearbox that works very well. Because of that, I would like to see a game that really requires a drive system that goes above and beyond in order to be competitive. Zone Zeal pretty much had that, but let's have a game with even more emphasis on the drive system.

I know big arms are more fun to watch than pushing matches, but we need a return of the necessity for drive system fabrication/design/innovation/etc.

This year, there were too many teams using the kit gearbox for my liking. I like to see all sorts of different gearboxes.

While box on wheels robots aren't very exciting, neither is a different arm on the same box.

Giving a good gearbox in the kit was the right move but frankly I'm disappointed that 5 and 6 year teams are not striving for better with their drive system.

Even more emphasis on drivetrains? I respectfully disagree, Sanddrag. I dislike the idea of, and don’t think you could ever come up with, a game that forces every team or most teams to veer away from the Kit Chassis. If you do this, then what’s the incentive to putting all the money and other resources into providing one? It’s much too valuable for many teams to eliminate from the kit, or to make a game where it couldn’t be adapted to the game.

IMHO, games like the 2004 game would have been perfect if the robots had been able to score the dodge balls. I think you need two different scoring objects for teams to focus on and a bonus skill like hanging/balancing/lifting something in a game. It’s exciting to see robots stacking tetras, scoring balls, capping balls, hanging, falling, balancing, etc. That’s what 2004 missed; the mass scoring of dodge balls by robots, and not the arcing jump shots of human players.

Innovation happens each year, whether it’s a new drive system, a new arm, a new conveying system, or whatever. It’s something that occurs on its own because people like me want to try to make something new, and want to improve upon past ideas. Forcing a little innovation is fine, but the idea of making teams develop an entirely new drive system or other mechanism on a whim is overkill.

-Bill

[ChrisH]

Originally Posted by Bill Gold

Even more emphasis on drivetrains? I respectfully disagree, Sanddrag. I dislike the idea of, and don’t think you could ever come up with, a game that forces every team or most teams to veer away from the Kit Chassis. If you do this, then what’s the incentive to putting all the money and other resources into providing one? It’s much too valuable for many teams to eliminate from the kit, or to make a game where it couldn’t be adapted to the game.

<snip>

Innovation happens each year, whether it’s a new drive system, a new arm, a new conveying system, or whatever. It’s something that occurs on its own because people like me want to try to make something new, and want to improve upon past ideas. Forcing a little innovation is fine, but the idea of making teams develop an entirely new drive system or other mechanism on a whim is overkill.

-Bill

This year was the first year in a while that you actually had to be good at manipulating something to do well. Guess what industrial robots do, the kind corporations pay big bucks for? They manipulate things. They pick up parts and place them. They move welding heads. They lay composite tape. All of these tasks require picking something up and moving it relative to something else.

This year top robots are placing six or more tetras per match, even if defended against. That means going through the cycle of aquiring a tetra, delivering it to the proper goal, placing it on the goal and aquiring a new tetra at approximately 20 second intervals. That leaves about 5 seconds per task. To do this you have to have a really well designed machine. It means balancing your design so that ALL of these tasks are covered, especially manipulating tetras. This is much more difficult and subtle than building a box on wheels that can just shove things around.

This year's challenge is much more like the tasks we expect robots to do in real life than playing "bumper cars" as Sanddrag seems to prefer. I like it that way.

[Not2B]

Give a young or small team a game that requires an amazing drive train, and you will get boxes on wheels.

Give a young or small team a usable, simple drivetrain, and you will get some impressive "others".

In the past, we have blown our whole build trying to get a drive system working. As a result, we just tack on some junk for our "other" devices. This year we used the drive that came with the robot. And WOW!!! did that get the students excitied. All of a sudden they could work on REAL robot parts instead of a fancy RC car. You don't need the fancy machining to make an arm, the way you need it to make a fancy 6 motor 9 speed automatic crab surfing drive train.

That drive system was the single best item that has ever come in the kit of parts for my team. We got so many more people involved. I'd say it at least DOUBBLED our ablity to spread the word of FIRST on our team.

I say go with simple drive, and the teams that CAN do a fancy drive will.

[Joe J.]

He's right you don't need fancy machining to build an arm all you need is a Hacksaw & Drill.

[Collmandoman]

When you begin to think abotu designing a game... you just can't.. there are so many considerations... cost.. is it practicle...is it fun.. is it watchable... the list goes on and on and on forrrrever.. I feel sorry for lavery =/

[mathking]

Wasn't going to post here, but what the heck? What about a game which offers alternatives? Maybe a game with a set of bars running accross the field that a robot can grab and move along to accomplish its tasks while still allowing robots to accomplish the same tasks while driving along the ground. Or a platform that can be climbed with tasks to accomplish atop the platform and tasks to be done by robots on the ground?

One thing I am sure of, I and my students will have fun next year. When I think back and compare the "best" and "worst" games I have seen from FIRST I think it is like choosing between BlackBerry and Mint Chocolate Chip ice cream!

[WLitchfield]

I say screw drivetrains, and screw playing fields as well. I think the competition should be underwater where robots manuever to move objects from one underwater cube to the others to score points. No one would really have an advantage b/c both rookie teams and vets are on a whole new plane of thinking and engineering. Besides the depths of our oceans are still considered frontiers along w/ space so we should move to a game that is practical to todays frontiers.348

[the_short1]

i agreee.. it helps us (rookie team) to be able to focus on our telescoping arm) rather then on driving.. we spent a couple days thinking about our drive train and it was rather simple to decide to use omni wheels and 4wheel drive so we would be manuverable yet powerfull..

i also seen WAY too many broken arms . . it was fun to watch yet. .. painfull>? . . . and it would make it way worse and it breaks the teams hearts to see their robot break if the playing field had rough terain.. i say.. keep it flat..

[Billfred]

I've seen some of the flatter games (Zone Zeal, Triple Play) in action, either live or by videotape. I've also seen games with monstrous climbable field features (Stack Attack, FIRST Frenzy: Raising The Bar) the same way.

Put simply, I love games with the big field features. If for nothing else, it makes the field look more interesting. Compare:

FIRST Frenzy

Triple Play

Also, a good use of colors can contribute to a field that draws folks in more. (For reference, both of those pictures were taken in the same venue, the Colonial Center here at USC.) In FIRST Frenzy, we've got colors all over the place--purple balls and yellow 2X balls, of course, but then we have this ginormous red and blue platform usually stuffed with the aforementioned purple and yellow balls, plus a few robots on the bar. Triple Play has the tetras and the goals, with the vision targets at the bottom of the field. (Of course, with the CMUcam in the kit this year, I can see how there's a method to the madness with a simple field.)

That being said, I would be ecstatic to see an interesting center feature again, one that would draw robots that way, instead of away from each other. (Ten-point bonus for all three robots touching the center goal, anyone?)

If/when Dave posts the "you-design-the-2006-game" thread, I'll develop this the whole way.

[dhitchco]

Hi gang,
please bear with my reply, as I work for a military radio company, so this response may have a lop-sided response:

TriplePlay is my first exposure to the games of FIRST, but I have seen videos of prior years too. I really do like the concept of multi-team alliances and think that three is a good number, but not more than that. I believe the "heart" of the game is in the vision, manipulators, and strategy, not in the drive train.

Real-world robots that operate on a level floor and pick/push/grab something are pretty pervasive in the industrial world.

However, in the military environment, the terrain is not likew running a raobot on a level warehouse floor. So, I'd like to see more crawling and climbing robots. Tunnels where the driver can't see the robot (semi-autonomous tasks) would be way kewl! Ramps and climbing like "stack attack" are also great.

I'd like to see the robots go from "A" to "B" and then perform some "task" rather than just moving an object. As an example, the military now uses robots (ground vehicles) to defuse those roadside explosive devices.

Think about a robot that has to go through a tunnel and then stick it's "key" into a special hole to turn on a 10-point reward light.

The objectives of the games can be endless; but think about how robots in the real world have advanced so much in the past few years with feelers, vision systems, and better 3-dimensional climbing abilities.

Lastly, human players (as discussed in a different thread) are a MUST-HAVE in these competitions. It adds to the excitement, involvement and human players can truly be "random"; which adds to game complexity. After all, it's not the robot that is getting the penalties this year is it?

[Billfred]

Alright, allow me to toss out a completely unrelated idea for 2006, and how it somewhat parallels the real world.

Suppose, when teams arrive at the Magnolia Regional on Friday, their match listings looked something like this:

MATCH 1 0930
RED: 9999, ????, ????
BLUE: 8888, ????, ????

Each of the remaining matches was done the same way, with each time being listed explicitly N times. At this point, those teams will be required to approach two other teams to join their alliance for that match, with some limit on the number of matches a team can play during the regional.

I relate it to the real world like this: Teams 9999 and 8888 are trying to make a product (more points than the other alliance). In order to meet that objective, they're going to have to recruit some outside suppliers (two more teams per alliance) to get their goods (additional point-scoring ability) in order to ensure success.

Now, there would be weaknesses to this--for starters, it adds another layer of madness to an already mad regional. And you'd have to get all these newly-formed alliances into the software pretty quickly (I suppose you'd have a person at the pit admin table entering this information from a team representative--I'd say the person with the mentor badge, but that's me.)

Then there's the issue of three teams always picking each other. You could always put the standard argument of "FIRST isn't fair" here, but it would still get mildly boring after a while. At this point, you'd limit teams acting as the picker (the team listed on the printout) to picking the same team no more than, say, twice at a regional. (The number can change, depending on size.)

Finally, the issue of the team that doesn't pick in time. This one I haven't figured out yet. If you were to force them to go out with one or two robots, you would all but ensure their alliance's failure, but then one or two teams couldn't play a match (as nobody filled those slots, and the capacity shrunk accordingly). I suppose it would involve a forced drafting of teams that still had open slots left. Undesirable, definitely, but the only way around it.

The "dance card" setup is a little crazy*, but it would add another layer of strategy to competitions, IMHO. Thoughts?

*Then again, some folks might argue that building a robot in six weeks is a little crazy.

[Scott Chambliss]

Going back to some of the earlier ideas about difficulty and rookie vs. veteran, I think that the competitions should have opportunities and challenges for all levels of experience. The ideal game (hypothetically speaking) would have a field that a rookie team with a provided drive train could move around on and score a respectable amount of points, as long as they put a bunch of effort into their robot. The field would also have a more challenging section/obstacle that could give a lot of points and would be seen as a challenge to the veteran teams. This way, all teams could be challenged, and rookies would have a decent chance of doing well.

Hmmm, its 11:40 and I haven't started my homework ...bye!

[RudimentaryPeni]

I think that a free car should be given to everyone who participates....(i can still dream)