the game for 2006

[John Gutmann]

i was looking at some threads about what the games for 2006 will be and i realized some kinda of pattern i dont know if it is anything special or just a coincidence but the game always includes some kind of obect you use to score points that is either a triangle, circle or square

2005- triangle-tetras
2004- circle-balls
2003- square(kinda sorta)-the rubber maid containers
2002- circle-soccer balls

\help me out with years previuous to this

[mechanicalbrain]

Yeah read some of the earlier threads. This has been noted a couple time. The idea is next year we will be moving giant bold letters as to keep in line with the FIRST logo. My team has figured out how to move everything except the S. But seriously i think we will use cubes of some type as we already did circles twice and its unlucky to use traingles two years in a time.

[663.keith]

you may be interested in the sub forum FRC Game Design. Included in here are many topics about what may be in next years game. Generally the game is not revealed until January so people do not get a head start.

Several topics include guesses about the 2006 game, including many hint from Dave. (hovercraft's, and the English Channel)

this thread is about the official hint for 2005, but makes many keen observaions about possible connections between the games from previous years
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=32010

[Arefin Bari]

2001- Ball
2000- Ball
1999- “Floppies”
1998- Ball
1997- Circular Tube
1996- Ball
1995- Ball
1994- Ball
1993- Ball
1992- Tennis Balls

Descriptions of the games can be found on FIRSTwiki.

[JulieB]

Originally Posted by Arefin Bari

2001- Ball
2000- Ball
1999- “Floppies”
1998- Ball
1997- Circular Tube
1996- Ball
1995- Ball
1994- Ball
1993- Ball
1992- Tennis Balls

Descriptions of the games can be found on FIRSTwiki.

Ball (s) are cheap
not saying that FIRST is cheap just its cheaper for the teams to buy

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by JulieB

Ball (s) are cheap
not saying that FIRST is cheap just its cheaper for the teams to buy

Balls aren't necessarily cheap, especially if you're building a field.

I might argue, however, that balls are more readily available. Tetras were fun, but I feel bad for anyone who put together enough for a scrimmage. That's a lot of cutting and bolting.

[Eagle X]

Here is my version we have to put tetras on top of boxes and then put a ball inside the tetra

[JMH]

I think it will most likely be something involving a square object because we used triangles last year and balls the year before I think they are trying to mix it up

[Simon Strauss]

this is just an idea with no real basis behind it and if it has already been said I'm sorry its been a while, but how awesome would it be if the game were to be blind to the drivers and coach and they had to rely on cameras and other sensors to play the game. the way i see it the game would be made a lot more interesting if those controlling were to be isolated and teams were forced to incorporate the sensors and cmu type things more while building. it may be a bit hard to pull off but in most real life applications of human controlled robotics the person isn't there(unmanned planes etc) and it is the direction in which robotics seems to be going in my mind.

[Nitroxextreme]

I'm hoping that they will "alter" the no projectile philosphy they are operating under and just make the robots shoot things

[Nuttyman54]

Originally Posted by Nitroxextreme

I'm hoping that they will "alter" the no projectile philosphy they are operating under and just make the robots shoot things

however cool that may be, it'd be pretty dangerous. My reasoning:

a) not even "Battlebots" (how dare speak of it in these forums) allows projectiles for safety reasons

b)we nearly killed (ok so i'm exaggerating) a cameraman last year at Silicon Vallye Regional when we missed a goal and the tetra fell...imagine what projectiles could do

c)in my opinion, the only practical application in previous FIRST games for projectiles was for hanging...something that teams managed to do quite well without them.