TRIPLE REPLAY ... the consequence for not doing Dean's homework!

[Rick TYler]

Originally Posted by the_short1

o.. dont you worry.. next years game will be with cubes.. .. circle (balls) last year.. triangles (tetras) this year.. square (cubes) next year
look at their logo guys!

Oh, jeez, I've been sucked into the Wild Idea Zone...

They're cubes, see, but they are made of PVC pipe, 24 inches on a side. Scoring is done by swimming -- oops, that's the 2007 game -- driving up and down ramps to place colored cubes into a horizontal 5x5 grid. You can push the cubes through the grid in either direction, and there is no penalty for pushing another alliances cubes out of the grid.

A tetra in the lowest row of the grid is worth one point, second row is worth 2, etc. The top row, which you will readily see is over eight feet in the air, is worth five points. Bonuses are scored for four or five in a row, vertically, diagonally or horizontally.

I haven't worked out autonomous goals because of this pounding pain in my temples. I'll leave it to the more feverish high schoolers among you.

[IMDWalrus]

Originally Posted by Kyle

I think it would be a great idea, if someone would show me where teams can tap more money out of to start other teams and still keep theres running. A lot of areas rural and city alike have been taped by so many FIRST teams or even just one team that getting additional funding could be a nightmare. I do the the replay a little bit to it would add a whole new element to making a competitive robot.

I think this would be a great game idea for an off season competition with the pink tetra and the 25 second auto mode though.

Which areas are we talking about, exactly?

Michigan and California may be overly saturated, but what about the middle of the United States? Nebraska? What about states like Oregon, that have a handful of teams when compared to other areas?

FIRST can still grow in the U.S. I don't know if it'll be a good thing or not, but it can regardless.

[HaWkeYe15]

I like the idea of triple play again, but i dont think some of those rule changes are the best ideas. Why would rookie teams have the advantage? Some rookie teams do outstanding already, they dont need the advantage in build time. When my team was a rookie team, we placed 7th in the Silicon Valley regional, and were not the highest placed rookie team.
Our team already has trouble completing our robot in the allotted build time, as I'm sure other teams do as well. Decreasing this time would just cause more teams to drop out.

[tkwetzel]

Originally Posted by HaWkeYe15

I like the idea of triple play again, but i dont think some of those rule changes are the best ideas. Why would rookie teams have the advantage? Some rookie teams do outstanding already, they dont need the advantage in build time. When my team was a rookie team, we placed 7th in the Silicon Valley regional, and were not the highest placed rookie team.
Our team already has trouble completing our robot in the allotted build time, as I'm sure other teams do as well. Decreasing this time would just cause more teams to drop out.

I believe that allowing less build time, but still releasing the game 6 weeks before ship date might be a novel idea. I think that many teams would benefit from a restricted schedule for a week or two after the game comes out. This would give teams time to strategize and design, which some teams probably don't spend enough time on. I like Lucien's idea, but I also see where Ken Patton is coming from. I think that allowing teams to build a robot after seeing what has worked this past year won't decrease inspiration though. I believe that teams would strive for perfection on a design and strategy after seeing what has worked. This may give an advantage to teams that had great robots this past year, but I think the great minds at FIRST could find some way to limit duplicate robots (like a mixup of the motors again or a size and weight limit change ).

There are several great ideas in this thread, but I doubt that we will see FIRST replay a game for a second year.

[Shu Song]

A HUGE problem: how do you enforce the rule that vets can't build before Jan 30? Before, all that limited the teams was not knowing the game, which happens to be a giant limitation, but now, who says teams can't start perfecting their robot starting now if they knew that next year would have the same game. It makes no sense and it will never work.

With all due respect, Lucien, this is a terrible idea. Forcing a team to start others will result in a lot of poorly managed teams that probably won't survive for more than a year or two.

Money is a giant issue for many teams, for example, our team just now has enough of a financial foothold to start thinking about starting new teams. You just can't start helping others before helping yourself.

Besides, what makes you feel better, creating a team out of sheer love for FIRST or just to be able to start teh build season on time?

my 2 cents.

[Yan Wang]

Originally Posted by Shu Song

A HUGE problem: how do you enforce the rule that vets can't build before Jan 30?

Gracious professionalism... otherwise, the program has failed.

The idea is interesting although I am fond of the different games each year.

[HaWkeYe15]

Originally Posted by Yan Wang

Gracious professionalism... otherwise, the program has failed.

The idea is interesting although I am fond of the different games each year.

I am fond of them as well. Although this game is an outstanding game, there will no doubt be an equally outstanding game next year.

[the_short1]

i agree with mike.."Teams shouldn't be required to create new teams (or do other GP things). They should (and most do) do it out of the love for FIRST and engineering in general."

although to win ANY awards you basically have to create FLL teams and such .. something we just didnlt have enuf time and people power to do as a rookie team, and i still am boggled how 1511 did it all!<they definately deserved it//.. because if it wasnlt for them i think team 1596 coulda won the rookie award... . they must all drink red bull and go crazy doing 15 things at once!

.. yes! im glad to hear that the game from 3 years ago was a box type game! that means my predictions will probally be right!!.

[dlavery]

But, but, but, but ... if we just re-play "Tiple Replay" (a little bit of a Freudian slip there, Lucien? ) then what in the world will the Game Design Committee do with all that new-found free time between last Monday and January 7, 2006? Since they wouldn't have to come up with a new game, they would have to concentrate on other things - like how to enforce the proposed "no metal on robots" rule.

-dave

[nic_radford]

Since I was the one of the soundboards for Lucien when he got this crazy idea, now I'll tell him how I really feel instead of nodding and smiling when he presented the idea to me. Just kidding.... I do feel it is a novel concept, one worth debating.

There was a thread earlier that talked about what was more important: winning chairman’s or winning the championship’s. Pretty divided. I remember when I was reading it, I went in thinking that the overwhelming response would be chairman’s, and it really wasn't. Now obviously, the sample set (your chief delphi poster) and responses given can't be considered generous enough to get an accurate representation of the true pulse of every Tom, $@#$@#$@#$@# and Harry FIRSTer. But I think it could indicate something stunning. Some teams (more than we'd probably like to admit) aren't really interested in starting teams. I hate to say it, I really do, but they aren't. I believe it is evident in the data. Lucien wouldn't be suggesting these hare brained ideas if we were getting an abundance of new teams every year. I feel 'forcing' the issue would unfortunately make most teams positions more than clear. They wouldn't like it. And I think it as a lot to do with money.

Personally, I feel growing FIRST has to start with us. I do. But I truly believe that FIRST has to create an susceptible environment. It is becoming increasing harder for veteran teams to keep going, let alone now divert these already strained resources to other teams.
I’m not making excuses, but I’m trying to point out realities. FIRST increases prices and then we get called out for not doing homework. I doubt FIRST is scamming us, but if Dean wanted new teams he waive or highly reduce entry fees or kit fees for rookie teams. In the end, this is about money. Very few teams are rolling in it. I’ve personally seen each extreme, and wow what a difference it can make.

[Koko Ed]

If FIRST was going to repeat a game they should take JOe Ross' suggestion and repeat the 2004 game with a few rule change (like the red and blue zone bar).

[Denman]

Originally Posted by Kris Verdeyen

Really, though, don't we already have something like this? Every year we see imitations of the most successful drivetrains, and every year we see the teams that created those successes pushing the envelope even further. Look at AndyMark and the kitbot. Are the teams that didn't have to come up with their own solution as to how to drive around any less inspired? We can't have it both ways - either better robots lead to better inspiration, or they don't.

Anyway, I think that the idea that the game is the same isn't really central to the whole concept. (The person who's concept it is might disagree.) Imagine being a rookie team next year, and showing up on day 1 with a working drivetrain and arm. You can see up close how someone else screwed up, and how to fix it. A rookie team starts with a year of hardware under their belt, and the help of a more experienced team to move them along. Allowing them to use whatever parts of their mentor team's robot they want to salvage gives them the chance to be competitive, or at least the chance to see what doesn't work. I think it's great.

Another possibility: limiting the build restrictions to teams who won a regional or a robot award last year. Discuss.

Even arms this year were similar to last years ... (see pink/233 for an example, anyone who saw them last year will know what i mean )

[Denman]

Originally Posted by dlavery

But, but, but, but ... if we just re-play "Tiple Replay" (a little bit of a Freudian slip there, Lucien? ) then what in the world will the Game Design Committee do with all that new-found free time between last Monday and January 7, 2006? Since they wouldn't have to come up with a new game, they would have to concentrate on other things - like how to enforce the proposed "no metal on robots" rule.

-dave

Lol
They could start on the year afters game, and make it even better than any before, with 2 years you can get a lot more different i would guess.... maybe some wierd and wonderful thing that no one else will have thought of
and no metal? would that include on the electronics, would we have to control our robots through many little hamsters all synchronised and who can understand speech

[tiffany34990]

if they make you do all of deans homework...i predict some teams will die....some areas have so many teams how do you just start a new one...really it should be starting new teams in areas that have no teams we know what states those are...

we can keep coming up w/ teams and at the same time lose a lot of great veteran teams because of funding... our team would love to start a new team in our county but funding is an issues...we may later split s.p.a.m. but not this year or next...

the homework is a good idea and all but is it all possible???... his hw is still the best!

[Wayne C.]

Somebody has way too much time on their hands....

Instead of trying to bill veteran teams for the kits for rookie teams how about having FIRST offer free registration for rookies and reduced registration for teams that are reasonable mentors? I can't see a team scraping and working all year to be left with nothing for their own registration while their rookie proteges play free. That is pretty unrealistic.

For this off season and the next 6 events our team is refitting our older robots to play Triple Play and loaning them to pre-rookies of at least three schools. They get to play for free or a near free cost. We learned this from Baldwin HS who did it last year at our BE event with great success. Other teams in our region are doing this too for the off season and we have a regional development program for new teams (RINOS) in place and working. Any team attending BE with a pre-rookie protege in tow will get in for a much reduced cost and the new guys for free.

No gimmick needed- just planning and hard work. (Thats the breakdown for most)

Before I assign homework to my classes I need to a do a lot of lesson planning and more instruction on how to proceed. Sounds like this homework assignment could use a bit more planning too.

WC