[Official 2006 Game Design] Game Elements and Subtasks

[sanddrag]

Remember how in 2004 the bar could be raised or lowered with a drill put into the side of the platform? While it was rarely used, I think it was pretty neat.

What if there was something similar where robots could drive over and do that. Like there would be a hex shaped receptacle in the field and then the robots would have a hex shaped spinning bar and they could drive up, stick it in, and raise or lower the bar or something else to make it easier for themselves or harder for the opponents.

[Ronald_raygun]

For the '06 game no matter what the challenges are, I thinkthey should elevate the driver stations. It was kinda difficult to see the goals on the other side of the field.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by sanddrag

Bridge it yourself - the robot is its own bridge. Just think, totally new kind of mechanism, and not a whole lot to copy from in the real world. Definitely a medium-sized point bonus would be given for bridging it yourself, as opposed to using the field (below).

Sorry, sanddrag, but it's not totally new. WWII: Some tanks were known as "funnies." One of them was a bridge builder and carried two simple bridges onboard. The "new" mechanism would be a way to pick up the bridge so none can follow...

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Ronald_raygun

It was kinda difficult to see the goals on the other side of the field.

That's the whole point of having the driver stations at field level!

[Ronald_raygun]

Originally Posted by EricH

That's the whole point of having the driver stations at field level!

The problem is hitting a robot in the loading zone accidentially and potentially hurting someone. Besides, the center goal on the ends of the field kinda made it hard the the center drivers to see even past the middle goal.

[robot180]

I liked the idea of a multi-level field, but what about an elevator? There could be a box, made of metal on the bottom and either lexan or wire mesh or something on the sides. It could have doors and be controlled from a button at each end of the field. The elevator should be large enough to fit two robots that each fit inside the envolope. At the end of a match, all of the robots could fight to get into the elevator for extra points.

In addition to all of that, there could be more to the game, like ways to earn points from both the first level and the second level.

Robot Safety:
For the safety of the robot, the door could automatically close before the elevator begins to move and open when it stops at its destination. Also, the elevator could have a lexan box built around it so a robot does not drive under the elevator and the elevator does not lower down onto a robot. The elevator could be set to not stop until it reaches a floor and gives sufficient time for robots to get out and new robots to get in, like a real elevator in a building.

[Ronald_raygun]

There is one problem with that elevator design. Is it easy to build? Assemble/disassemble?

[sanddrag]

Originally Posted by Ronald_raygun

There is one problem with that elevator design. Is it easy to build? Assemble/disassemble?

Howabout an elevator powered by a robot? One robot gets inside and a partner grabs a rope and starts pulling which raises the elevator. It would be a collaborative effort. I think that would be wicked cool.

See, this way you don't have to have any special motorized mechanisms or anything. Basically just a box with a rope that goes up to a high pulley, and then some easy way for another robot to get ahold of that rope.

I'm really liking the idea of robots powering field elements.

[Jaine Perotti]

Originally Posted by RyanMcE

A major field element that moves, like in 2001, but bigger... and spinning. Think, giant merry-go-round in the center of the field. Hm, now I have to run over to the game design thread and submit this idea that just came into my head...

I just had an idea come into my head as I was reading this.

- The field would be divided into two sections, "A" and "B".
- Goals to receive scoring objects would be mobile (like 2002 and 2004), and color coded to each alliance. x amount of points would be scored per object in the goal.
- There would be a "spinner" (like on a game board) located in the center of the field. If the spinner is pointed to side "A" of the playing field, all of the points scored in the mobile goals located on side "A" would be multiplied by, say, 2. If it is pointed to side "B", then all of side "B"s goals would receive the multiplier.

This game would allow for innovation in drivetrain design (battling for possession of the spinner), AND in offensive play (scoring points). This game would make both simple, defensive designs AND complex, offensive designs advantageous. This game would make it so that BOTH types of robots are needed.

Its also interesting because the multiplier would benefit both teams. The value of both scoring methods would also be pretty balanced - neither one would really take precedence over the other, because the bonus would effect both alliances.

This game also provides for last minute excitement ("Who is going to get the spinner bonus?") Robots would be trying to manipulate the spinner in their favor, and other would be trying to push goals onto the side of the field that the spinner is pointed towards (multiple tasks for multiple alliance partners). The spinner also puts alot of the focus of attention in the center of the field, which several people have mentioned as a favorable game characteristic.

What do you think?

-- Jaine

[Ryan Foley]

Originally Posted by BurningQuestion

I just had an idea come into my head as I was reading this.

- The field would be divided into two sections, "A" and "B".
- Goals to receive scoring objects would be mobile (like 2002 and 2004), and color coded to each alliance. x amount of points would be scored per object in the goal.
- There would be a "spinner" (like on a game board) located in the center of the field. If the spinner is pointed to side "A" of the playing field, all of the points scored in the mobile goals located on side "A" would be multiplied by, say, 2. If it is pointed to side "B", then all of side "B"s goals would receive the multiplier.

This game would allow for innovation in drivetrain design (battling for possession of the spinner), AND in offensive play (scoring points). It also provides for last minute excitement ("Who is going to get the spinner bonus?") Its also interesting because the multiplier would benefit both teams, but one team more than the other. Robots would be trying to manipulate the spinner in their favor, and other would be trying to push goals onto the side of the field that the spinner is pointed towards (multiple tasks for multiple alliance partners).

What do you think?

-- Jaine

Funny, I had a similar idea, except that I borrowed MIT 2.007's version. Instead of a spinner, I was thinking the 2001 teeter-totter bridge, maybe bigger. Whichever side was lower would have their points multiplied, or it would just be worth a certain number of pints if a multiplier is too much.


I like yours though, it's new, and I think it'd be harder to manipulate/ more fun to watch. Perhaps it could double as the location for robot scoring (get your robot on top).

To reply to BillFred's post (below): Actually I thought an interesting idea was a large balance scale. Whoever's side is lower wins the match. Then, the points for objects in your side is your Ranking Points from that match. Perhaps I shall whip up a full description of this for the other thread

Bonus: it gets rid of the "2X the loosers score...." stuff.

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by Ryan Foley

Funny, I had a similar idea, except that I borrowed MIT 2.007's version. Instead of a spinner, I was thinking the 2001 teeter-totter bridge, maybe bigger. Whichever side was lower would have their points multiplied, or it would just be worth a certain number of pints if a multiplier is too much.

I like yours though, it's new, and I think it'd be harder to manipulate/ more fun to watch. Perhaps it could double as the location for robot scoring (get your robot on top).

Well, if we're talking of lower, how about a balance scale to keep things interesting? Load it any way you safely can (balls, tetras, robots, freshmen), and have that multiply things.

[robot180]

In my opinion, a balance is not a great idea because what real life situation does that resemble and also, it doesn't seem as exciting as the spinner or elevator ideas. How about several spinners. If a robot can climb ontop of one spinner, it can reach the second spinner to get more points. If the first spinner is rotated with a robot on it, it might make it harder for drivers and operators to control, which may call for some good strategy and stuff.

[sanddrag]

I do like the spinner in the sense that it gives something to really "battle" over like the top of the ramp in 2003. The spinner would have to be built really sturdy though so it didn't break from robots pushing on it to point it a different way and climbing on it etc.

[Jaine Perotti]

I just had another thought - what if the spinner was long enough so that when it was pointing towards the side of the field, it would be so long that it would block off that half of the field.... so it could be used as a barricade to robots coming through on that side? That would make things more interesting. It would look sort of like this:

_____________
| ................ |
| ................ |
| ................ |
| ................ |
| ................ |
|<----+........ |
| ................ |
| ................ |
| ................ |
| ................ |
| .................|

[SoftwareBug2.0]

Originally Posted by Ronald_raygun

For the '06 game no matter what the challenges are, I thinkthey should elevate the driver stations. It was kinda difficult to see the goals on the other side of the field.

I disagree. As a driver, I did not find it difficult to see the our team's robot. In my opinion, the most difficult part was when the robot was right up next to the driver's station, which would not be helped by a raised platform.

Originally Posted by EricH

That's the whole point of having the driver stations at field level!

There are a couple problems with raised drivers stations. One is that they would take more time to setup, and the other is that they would block the spectators' views. In my opinion, the drivers stations have been at their current locations it is the easiest to setup, and afford good visibility.