Ok, so YOU design the 2003 game...

[Kyle Hill]

Here's my idea for a game. I certainly hope I'm not too late, but if I am, oh well... my fault for taking song long.

FIRST Robotics Game Proposal: "REVENGE OF THE ZONE ZEAL"

This game resembles Zone Zeal a lot, but it gets rid of some of the flaws that made it the game somewhat "broken," to use a Magic:The Gathering term, for a few smart teams.

The game consists of two opposing alliances of two (three?) robots each. (As was done this year, I think it's probably best to inform the teams at the beginning of the competition exactly when they're playing and with whom they're playing with and against.) The field is the same size as this year's game, and is broken horizontally into two equal zones - the red zone and the blue zone.

Robots start the game in alternate corners (like this year). There are twenty balls along each side of the field, with each side having ten red and ten blue soccer balls. (The balls are positioned back to back as this year's game was, but the balls on each side are in two lines of ten of opposite colors, red balls are in the blue zone, blue balls are in red.)

In the center of the field are two goals (one in each zone). The cylindrical goals are moveable {try to feign enthusiasm, guys} and are approximately 6' tall and 8' in diameter. The goals are made of plexiglass (or something else transparent for the audience's sake) and have a completely smooth exterior, which makes it very hard grab to the goals since there is nowhere to. So the predominant force for moving goals is by pushing on them. Each goal has a band of blue or red around the top denoting it as that alliance's goal.

Scoring is as follows (for this, assume you're the red team)

1 point = each red ball in the red goal at the end of the game, regardless of the goal's position
5 points = each robot in the blue zone at the end of the game
10 points = having the red goal in the red zone at the end of the game.

A blue ball in the red goal, or the red goal in the blue zone, counts for nothing.

Edit: Forgot to mention... this game would go back to the "evil cruel and nasty" FIRST, so that an object would have to be entirely over the line to count as being in either zone.

There are three black "power balls" on the field - one in each player station and one in the center of the field between the two goals. For each power ball in a goal, the goal's score and all of the balls in it double.

(So if the red goal has five red balls and two power balls in it and is in the red zone at the end of the game...

5 + 10 = 15
15 * 2 * 2 = 60.)

However, if an alliance has all three power balls in it's player station at the end of the game (meaning the blue alliance shoots the power ball to a goal, misses, and the red alliance picks up both power balls on the field and brings them over to the red player station), then they win and the opposing alliance's score for the match will be zero.

The losing team in each match gains 0 qualifying points, while the winning team earns qualifying points equal to the square root of the margin of victory. (Red wins 22-13, 9^ (1/2) = 3.00 QP)


I dunno, just some concept ideas that have been floating around in my head for a while. As I said, I do hope it's not too late .

[DanL]

Originally posted by Kyle Hill
The losing team in each match gains 0 qualifying points, while the winning team earns qualifying points equal to the square root of the margin of victory. (Red wins 22-13, 9^ (1/2) = 3.00 QP)

hmm, don't you think that part is a bit overly-complicated? I mean, the 3x-losers-score has had enough complates, but the square root of the margin of win? eh, I think thats a bad idea

[Natchez]

I'd like to offer a friendly challenge to everyone. Let's come up with 10 obstacle ideas that when overcome, would be applicable to solving societal problems. Hopefully one day, FIRST spectators will be saying things like, "Wow, the fire department ought to implement a robot like that!" Here are a couple of examples that are fairly obvious with one being right up Dean's alley.

Obstacle: Two flights of stairs with a landing in between (2 steps, a landing, then 2 more steps would be sufficient).
Application for society: As Dean has demonstrated, this would be helpful for physically challenged folks. A very fast stair climbing robot could save lives in a fire.

Obstacle: A door with a standard door knob that is cut off just above the door knob (cutting the door short is to make it a little more spectator friendly).
Application: A robot that could manipulate standard door knobs quickly could be helpful to the physically challenged, fire departments, and bomb squads.


Even if a solution already exists (stair climbing robot for example), it would be interesting to see if the FIRST teams could advance some ideas.

Hopefully, I have helped push this thread toward page 10 so we can reduce Dave's sleep time from 2 hours a night to 1 hour a night. Dave, when your mother said, "Dave, you need your eight hours of sleep," she meant 8 hours a night ... not a week!

Please consider yourself challenged,
Lucien

[Jim]

>I'd like to offer a friendly challenge to everyone. Let's come up with 10 obstacle ideas that when overcome, would be applicable to solving societal problems.

Natchez, That is pure genius!

I will list your first 2 and add. Perhaps others will cut and paste to do the same; thereby keeping the list together for easier review.

1-fast stair climbing
2-door knob manipulation/opening (high resistance door as at a commercial establishment-no easy swinging house style doors ;-)
3-Pick semi-fragile items (empty cereal boxes?) off of a high shelf and place them on a lower one.
4-Use standard grocery store shopping carts as the goals.


I am writing this separately to keep the list intact: Here's a crazy idea, have a person on the robot that could do nothing but relay information, no control ability. Now you have to contend with moving all that extra weight. I can see it now, FIRST teams courting the smallest lightest person in the school to join their team.

I can't wait to see this thread grow!

[Madison]

Okay, kids, put down your pens.

Okay, not really, but here's my first thoughts -

The game, which is yet to be assigned a super-rad name, is played on a field matching the dimensions of this year's field, just so we can keep those nice folks at FIRST from having one extra thing to do next season. The player stations, however, might need to be slightly rearranged. Might not.

Game time is 2:00. Two alliances of two robots on the field at a time. Blue and red.

2003 Field Plan

2003 Scoring Bin

The game is reminscent of 2000, with two team colored scoring bins on the field, and balls worth varying amounts of pointage scatter about the field. There are, however, several items of note that make this game unique.

First, though, let's start with the basics. Note, please, that the actual numbers of balls on the field can vary some from what's shown. I'd like there to be at least a few more.

Yellow balls = 5 pts.
Green balls = 1 pt.
Red balls = -1 pt.
Robot in Zone = 5 pts.
Two Robots in Zone = 15 pts.
Three Robots in Zone = 20 pts.
Four Robots in Zone = 30 pts.

This requires that the robots be entirely within the zone, so no tethers or other questionable devices.

Also, please keep in mind that the scoring itself could probably use some playbalancing.

Now, the central octagon is formed by a railing that's approximately 3' tall. It is permitted that a robot may pass above or beneath this railing.

Each bin is formed of PVC piping to facilitate easy calculation of the score by the teams and the refs. Each bin is free-swinging about a pivot located high up on its side. As such, any robot that cannot fit below the goal or under the octagon border can pass by, though they'd strongly risk tipping the goal.

Each different point value ball is a unique diameter as well. The goal and 5 pt. balls should be designed to take that no more than 2 can easily fit inside a goal, and also so that 1 pt. balls cannot be inserted past the larger balls. However, the smallest -1 pt. balls can still fit. I expect teams to engineer clever ways around this, but I like this because it makes sprinting for and scoring 5 pt. balls less advantageous than in 2000.

The game is played for 2:00, with any number of different strategies. Finaly qualifying point calculation is still something of a play balance issue. I'm strongly interested in another system similar to this year's multiple of the other alliance. I particularly like the idea of the losing alliance receiving your score, also. This is somewhat difficult to balance, though, because 0's and negative scores are very likely.

What I expect to happen in a typical game scenario might go something like this -

At the start, one blue robot tries to head into the scoring octagon, while the corresponding red robot tries to interfere.

On the other side of the field, the blue robot runs down the line of -1 pt. balls. The other red robot is free to enter the scoring octagon as well.

In the scoring octagon, each of the robots battles over the 3 five (5) pt. balls. Meanwhile, each of their bins are swinging like a pendulum.

From here, so many different things could happen I can't even imagine them. It might be advantageous to dump an opponents bin and collect the points from there, or to empty a bin full of balls to fill it with a smaller, lower scoring group of balls.

It could very advantageous that robots have a way of getting out of the scoring octagon *without* dumping either goal, to facilitate scoring in a robot zone. This could mean that robots get 'trapped' inside.

The world is your oyster

If something's not clear, let me know and I'll set the world right

[Mech Wave]

Michael, Michael, Michael


I'm dissapointed. Have you forgotten to round your decimals to the nearest 10,000th again. Remember its...


1.0000pts
2.0000pts
3.0000pts
5.0000pts

Other than that its pretty good. Keep it up. haha

[Kyle Hill]

Originally posted by SuperDanman


hmm, don't you think that part is a bit overly-complicated? I mean, the 3x-losers-score has had enough complates, but the square root of the margin of win? eh, I think thats a bad idea

Eh. It's just an element I'm suggesting.

I like it when two teams who have a really good partnership are able to demonstrate their abilities in the practice rounds, so I personally believe in the school of thought of giving rewards to only the winners.

That said, if two experienced teams come up against two rookie teams without incentive to make it a close game as the current scoring system suggests, they'll demolish them. By doing the square root or something to that extent, it rewards those teams who win the game, but minimizes the effect of multiple blowouts (i.e. winning by 49 nets you only 7 QP).

We could use the natural log of the MOV if you want.

[Hubicki]

Mike,
I really like the idea of -1 point balls amidst other balls. Such an aspect adds a whole new dimension to any game. It would encourage teams to have mechanisms that distinquish between the different types of balls so it could raise their own score and lower the other team's score. Also, this leads itself to ball pickers that clean a goal of its negative balls. Overall, the robot diversity would be greater and more interesting. This could be implemented with not only balls, but whatever scoring mechanism that is used for the game. It also would be very convenient to turn the tides at the end of the match by quickly hurdling some negative balls into the other goal. I believe it's a very inventive idea. The only problem being with this would be the QP factor. Implementing any negative balls would lower the Potential QPs for the match (that is, if the loser score multiplier is implemented). Matches where these negative balls are used will tend to have much lower Qps than matches where they aren't used. It all depends on the QP scoring system. Nonetheless, a very cool idea.
~Hubicki~

[Vyrotek]

Check out the diagram BELOW, as you can see each 2 pairs of robots starts on their team side. Each team side as a area marked on the floor with their team color.

The objective is to push, pull, lift... whatever get those blocks somehow in your marked-off area. I threw in some ideas to have fun with such as a -5 point block ( UH OH ) and some +4 larger blocks. The -5 blocks would start out in your area so get it out and put it in THEIR zone! Get those point cubes and push or stack them in your ZONE!

I dont think this competition would rely on brute force as much as it would skill and strategy! Im still deciding on whether the blocks should count as points only if they are ALL THE WAY in the marked area or atleast SEMI part it. Maybe a mix between what kind of block it is.

Also any ideas on what the block could be made out of? I was thinking just plasitc cubes, it would be cheap to make and very easy to color. Perhaps even make them sponge cubes

* Got another idea, if you cant get cubes you could replace them with balls, same color and sizes as the cubes were but now the area that you need to get the balls into would be marked out by Half Inch PVC pipe around the border?! That way you could roll the balls in and they would stay there until someone came and knocked them out with some force.

[Andrew]

I. Why do we need complicated tie breakers (in Qualifying matches) to insure a win/loss? I recommend that ties be allowed, where in the event of a tie, both teams score QPs according to either:
1. 1.0*score (same as a loss for both teams)
2. 2.0*score (compromise)
3. 3.0*score (same as win for both teams)

In determining record you would have W-L-T.

You would need tie-breakers for elimination rounds.

II. Idea for autonomy...If different colored "balls" are going to count for different points, and some "balls" may deduct score, then, if we had a sensor which could give a signal when presented with this "negative color" we could have our robot make decisions and select which balls it chooses to pick up (for instance, a sensor which "sees red").

Another idea for autonomy is to put the "balls" in a box or bag that the robot would have to reach into (the driver couldn't see what he was getting). An autonomous gripper, with appropriate sensors, would only require the driver to get the appendage into the box. The gripper would sort through the balls.

Or, an enclosure with a 1'-2' high vision-blocking wall. You could still see enough to drive the robot in and out of the enclosure, but you could not clearly see balls on the playing field with enough certainty to reliably distinguish between red and blue balls.

If the game requires red alliance scores red balls and blue alliance scores blue balls, then interleaving balls on the playing field would encourage a device which can "sort by color." In other words, you would not need "deductive balls." If you just picked up a bunch of balls and scored them, you would score an equal number for both you and your opponent.

III. On using footballs with a human player. It is much easier to throw a football 40' and hit a small target than a soccer ball, beach ball, or basketball. If the game involves putting balls in goals and the balls are footballs, the human player would become too important.

IV. In defence of soccer balls, now that teams can reliably manipulate them with robots, you can have some pretty cool things going on in the game. If the game were to involve new, non-round "balls," you will probably only have a few teams effectively manipulate them.

Although the temptation to design a fribee hurler or a football place-kicker is nearly over-powering, I would rather design "Ball shooter, mark II" and get it tweaked out this time.

Andrew
Team 356

what about outlawing wheels?

idea: rather than a level XY plane as a playing field, what about having the field (outfitted w/ carpet) at an angle, say 45-60 degrees? This way robots need to move up and down as well as across the angled surface--more automation. Balls have been overused. Try equiangular trigonal pyramids as movable objects (they sit on angled surfaces nicely).

[Hubicki]

It seems to me that any game that includes battling over grounded objects is going to make the game very, very torque and traction oriented. With a game where big geometric shapes, goals or whatnot are the primary method of scoring, it will become like this year's eliminations where whoever can dominate with torque will be the victor. In some of these suggested games, the end all be all of robots would be one that is one huge bulldozer that has the torque of God. There needs to be a considerable speed/maneuverabillity factor that will prevent a no-brainer answer to the speed/torque dillema, or else robot diversity will be minimal. In next year's game, there needs to be a stronger incentive to make a fast and maneuverable robot as opposed to a torque-only bot. That will make the competition very interesting.
~Hubicki~

[DanL]

Anyone remember the old gameshow "American Gladiators" on USA a few (well, many) years back? Having a few fields like they had back then would be pretty cool. More like obstacle courses than a torque-fight.

[Vyrotek]

Hows this for a change in layout.... have these 4 Humps, to get points you need to see how many boxes you can put on your humps. There is also a sort of poll/tower thats very skinny but stacking your boxes on this would give you a multiplier! if you team had 1 box on the poll you would get a 2x muliplier, but the other team could have 2 more boxes on top of that giving them a 3x multiplier! I thought it would sound like fun, espcially the hump part because robots these days are so low to the ground.... get those bots up and doing stuff!

[Don]

I don't have anything in terms of a game, but I thought of a nifty little concept.
Everyone is always talking about these magic game pieces that are worth more than the rest (kind of like the black ball of 2000). What if we used this for Dean's little coopertition idea. What if this "ball" is worth 10 points in your "basket" but then it turns into a multiplier for the other team. Then you would have teams putting the little points for yourself and big points for the other team, but everyone gets higher scores b/c of all these multipliers.