[Official 2007 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2007 game...

[dlavery]

Okay folks, it is that time again. It has been two weeks since the FIRST Championships, and you have had some time to reflect on what worked about Aim High, and what didn't. There are already several discussions about what next year's competition might be like. Well, this is your opportunity to influence the design of the competition for next year.

The FIRST Game Design Committee is already spinning up their activities and working on design ideas for the 2007 game challenge. They are looking for good ideas, game concepts, rule suggestions, play field designs, etc - everything from a basic idea for a game to a set of detailed rules and parts drawings to a completely restructured tournament concept. With that thought in mind, we would like to once again ask for your help and open a thread to discuss ideas, concepts, and specific suggestions for the 2007 game.

We have read all the related CD threads posted to date discussing the 2006 game. There is no need to re-hash the pros and cons of prior games, or get too deep into philosophical discussions about previous years. Please keep those comments going, and please provide feedback on the 2006 game at the Team Forums later this summer. But please keep them in the relevant threads. Here, we want to figure out how to go forward and help build an exciting, challenging, stimulating and engaging competition for next year.

As always, here is what we can guarantee: EVERYTHING that you suggest will be read, discussed, and considered. Nothing will be ignored.

Here is what is not guaranteed: There is no promise that anything that is suggested will actually get used. For any of a number of reasons, the suggestions may be impractical, incompatible, or impossible to implement, and would not be incorporated into future games.

So, here are the ground rules (in no particular order or assumed priority):

- The game should provide a sufficiently difficult challenge that it will stress the abilities of the students and engineers on the teams to design and build a solution.

- The game should allow active participation by teams with widely-varying levels of resources.

- The game should be interesting to play, involving some tactical and strategic depth, and without a single, predictable solution strategy that guarantees a win.

- The game should be audience friendly and presumably TV-friendly (i.e. you can explain the basics of game to a TV audience in 30 seconds or less, it is easy to follow and exciting for the audience, and visually interesting for the duration of the match).

- Any field elements must be able to be constructed from readily availably materials (ask yourself this question "can I buy all the parts at Home Depot or Builders Square?"). Field elements that can be disassembled into 45x90-inch (or smaller) units that stack against a wall for storage are encouraged; field elements that require seventeen people to move or a small house to store are discouraged.

- The game should embody the values represented by FIRST (i.e. brings out the best aspects of a competitive spirit, advances the concept of mentorship within the team during the build and competition phases, does not promote needless destruction or violence, celebrates creative and imaginative solutions).

- The game should be structured so that ingenuity of design is just as important (or even more so) than advanced fabrication.

- There are no assumptions about the need for three-team alliances, limiting each round to just six teams, play fields in a single plane, etc.

- There is a preference (but not a requirement) for robots to have both offensive and defensive roles in the game. There is a preference (but not a requirement) for a role for the human player.

Also, understand that we are soliciting ideas for more than just the game itself. We want to hear about different concepts for alternate technologies and capabilities that might be incorporated into (or removed from) the game, and the structure of the competitions themselves. We want ideas for all elements of the 2007 FRC. To help spark thinking and create a structure for focused discussion, four discussion threads are being created to start things off. These threads will include:

1. Game concepts - this thread is intended for fully developed game ideas. It is intended to collect complete game concepts, as well as be an opportunity to discuss and refine posted concepts. This thread can also be used to discuss possible themes to drive game design. For example, two years ago the FIRST Lego League used “Missions To Mars” as their theme to design a game to examine some of the difficulties associated with remote exploration of distant environments. There has not been a defining theme for the past several FRC games, but you may have ideas to change this. This discussion will take place in this thread (here).

2. Game elements and subtasks - discussion of ideas for unique game elements and subtasks. If you don't have a fully developed game, but have a great idea about a piece of a game or an idea about something that has never been done before, then this is the place to talk about it. As examples from the past, someone could use this thread to post a suggestion to use funny pyramid-like PVC structures as an element, or that stacking stuff should be included as a challenging subtask, or that throwing objects would make for a great engineering challenge. Someone else may have a very creative idea for the role of the human player (while some may propose no human player at all). Others can use those ideas as a creativity springboard to develop a game concept. This discussion will take place here.

3. Autonomy and other technology - a thread to present new ideas for autonomous elements of the game, and other new technologies that could be introduced into the game or kit of parts. While autonomy need not be a part of a specific game, creative uses of autonomous components in any game are sought. For example, a discussion may be presented that proposes no dedicated autonomous time period during the game, but may require that a robot complete a certain function during the course of the game autonomously while other robots on the field are being controlled by their drivers. Alternately, ideas about new drive technologies (anyone know of a source for inexpensive CVTs?) or inter-robot communications may be reviewed. This discussion will take place here.

4. Radical tournament structure changes - this thread is intended to collect innovative ways to structure tournament play. Using previous years as an example, this might include ideas to add human players to a robot-only format, or to change the three robots playing at once to a three-team alliance format. Sizes of alliances, lengths of matches, number of matches at a tournament, etc are all open for discussion. Like the above thread, this thread is meant to collect creative ideas that can be applied to any game concept. This discussion will take place here.

Understand that this will be a one-way valve for information (for a while at least). There will not be a formal response from FIRST regarding any of the ideas or concepts discussed here. If a suggestion is incorporated into the game, you will not receive any feedback or know about it until the game is revealed next year. If it is not incorporated, you may never hear why (because we will be saving any ideas not used in 2007 for possible use in future games).

If at any time during this year's competition you thought "if I had designed the game I would have done it like this..." then here is your chance! We know that if there is a single place to go for this sort of input, it will be this forum! Let us hear your thoughts.

- 2007 FIRST Game Design Committee

[Billfred]

Funny you should start this thread right now, Dave--I was just thinking about this the other night.

I've only seen pictures and video of the 2001 game, but the concepts of forcing the robots on a side to work together is something that appeals to me. On the other hand, there is something to be said for defense and having a winner and a loser and all those other things that an NvN game brings to the table.

So imagine a field around the size of the Aim High field. The field is divided into thirds the short way (think Zone Zeal) by speed bumps of some sort. Robots can not drive over these speed bumps except if there is no functioning robot on the other side due to things such as tipping, an E-Stop, or a no-show (or as laid out later).

On the left side of the field is a collection of small balls of two sizes, lined up in the middle of the section. For our purposes, we'll say 20 soccer balls and 20 13" kickballs. (Each alliance station also receives ten of each.)

In the middle are a line of twelve bins made of PVC and lexan (or luan, for the team version), about two feet square and three feet tall with a PVC handle at the top that a robot could grab. The PVC should slide well enough on the carpet to keep teams from having to hunt down expensive casters, yet remain light enough to be picked up by a determined team. On the right side of the field is a shelf four feet high, two and a half feet deep, and as wide as the field. One side is painted red, one side is painted blue, and there's a divider between the two, enough to make a bin placed on it tilt one way or the other.

Autonomous begins with robots starting from opposite corners of their sections. Lights on each side of the field (red for balls, green for bins, blue for the shelf) allow teams to align themselves where they choose to be. In the remainder of the match, robots (which are functionally the same size as this year) are trying to get balls into the bins and onto the shelf. Each bin on the alliance's shelf is worth one point, tripled for each ball within the bin. Bins that a robot is holding on to (meaning off the floor and at least partially within the robot's starting footprint) are one point, doubled for each ball within the bin.

When the clock is down to the final ten seconds of the match, the no-crossing-the-speedbumps rule is dropped. Robots make the mad dash across the field to get under their shelf for a twenty-five point bonus.

Granted, autonomous and human players aren't quite as important as in years past with this setup, but the robots become more interesting. Teamwork is required in a big way, and scouting becomes essential to get a good alliance for the finals. The field is easy to replicate in team-sized bits, and nobody's had to pick up two similarly-sized balls before. A loaded bin's weight should require more than a mere rehash of teams' Triple Play arm, and the shelf height forces teams to make design choices--do you want to hold more bins for the multiplier, or fit under the shelf? And the scramble for the shelf should make all of the drivetrain nuts happy, since the robots will need both controllability to maneuver in tight spaces while still keeping that explosive speed in the end.

So that's my idea.

[Cody Carey]

Smaller manipulators.







I work at an outsourced quality control corporation (basically I sort tiny mental parts all day for little more than minimum wage). One of the main things that I sort is a little 2" by 1/2"Dia. steel sleeve. We throw away countless numbers of these every day for having minor incongruencies such as surface blemishes or variation in color, you know, the kind of thing that would not inhibit designing of a device to handle them with. FIRST could probably find a company willing to donate these discarded items, maybe even for free. I think that this would be an amazing change in the game so far.





Also, find a way to track a teams individual score for qualifiers, and them use the alliance score for finals... I think that would take most of the luck out of

coop-eratition.

[Jeff Rodriguez]

I was going to break it down by section but, I changed too much on the fly. I do not envy the game design committee.

Same size as last year. Across the middle of the field (the short way) is a 4" platform seven feet wide. In the center of the field is goal. The goal is made of vertical pipes and is 10 feet tall with a bin on the top and a bin in the middle (at the 5' mark). At each end of the field (the long way) 25 footballs are placed along the field border. Red ones on one side, blue on the other. 10 more footballs are also placed in each alliance station.
In opposite corners of the field there are 'interaction zones' (think '99) where robots may interact with the human players, either depositing balls or receiving balls.
The game is 2v2 with a 3rd partner that must play once in a series (like 02, 03, 04). The alliances start with their robots next to the platform on the opposite side as its footballs Each robot may also start with an additional 5 footballs.

Points are scored by placing footballs into the goal, or by ending with you robot on top of the platform.
1 point is awarded for each football of your corresponding color between the floor and the bottom of the middle bin.
2 points are awarded for each football of your corresponding color between the middle bin and the top bin.
5 points are awards for each football of your corresponding color in the top bin.
15 points are awarded for having the most footballs of your color in the top bin of the goal.
5 points are awarded for 1 robot on top of the platform at the end of the match.
15 points are awarded for 2 robots of the same alliance on the platform at the end of the match.

Basically robots collect and/or score footballs in the center goal, and fight for the platform, earning as many points as possible.

[Donut]

The field would be the same size as last year, but possibly with something other than carpet (they have large sheets of tile at Home Depot, and you could probably get enough to cover the entire game field for less than $500). This game is designed for 3 robots, but could be easily modified to accomodate more/less. The initial size and weight restrictions on a robot are the same as this year, once the match begins robots may extend to any size.



Robots start in the 3 color squares for their alliance, just like this year. The game is played with a few hundred racquet balls (yeah small scoring objects!) Balls may be scored into either the shorter, covered goals or the taller, open goals (this would force teams to have some kind of adjustable or two different scoring mechanisms instead of one all around one).



Balls scored in the short covered goal (opening is about 3 feet off the ground) are worth 1 point each, balls scored in the taller goal (about 5.5-6 feet tall) are worth 2 points. The lights above the two taller goals may be either red or blue (one will be one, one the other) indicating which alliance that goal will score for. These lights will not indicate which alliance the goal will be for until the beginning of autonomous mode, and drivers will not be given prior knowledge of the goals either. Any balls scored in a goal count for the team it is colored/lighted for (so you can score for opponents). The permanent red goal is in the blue alliance station, and the permanent blue goal is in the red alliance station, so your goal is on the opposite end of the field like Aim High.

Autonomous would be between 10 and 15 seconds long, with robots able to score in any goal. Each robot may start with up to 20 balls, and there will be no balls on the field at the start of the match. The winner of autonomous receives a 5 point bonus and starts on defense.

The periods would play out the same way they did in Aim High, with the same time lengths and same offensive/defensive rules (including offsides). There are 2 large ball containers each containing between 100 and 300 racquet balls, with one on each end of the field along the sides (not shown in the pictures). At the beginning of the 2nd and 3rd periods, the ball conatiner on the offensive team's side of the field (so, if blue were on offense, the conatiner closest to the blue alliance station) will open and dump the racquet balls in it all over the field.

Throughout the rest of the match balls in the tall goals still score 2 points and balls in the covered goals still score 1 point. Scoring is real-time, and balls that are scored may then be entered back into play by human players (human players may not shoot balls into the goals).

On each side of the field is a large teeter-totter with a PVC pipe goal for one of the alliances on either end.



Balls placed in this teeter-totter will not count for any points; balls may be placed in it by either human players shooting at it or by robots on the field. Balls placed in one of these goals will remain in them for the rest of the match and may not be removed. At the end of the match, an alliance will double their score for each teeter-totter they have leaning towards their goal (this can be checked by a scale or something, but the teeter-totter gives a nice, cool visual indicator). Robots may not be intentionally touching the teeter-totter at the end of the match; doing so will result in the double multiplier automatically being awarded to the opposing alliance. If an alliance tips both teeter-totters in their favor, they will double then double again their score, quadrupling it overall.

Well, I think that pretty much covers my game.

[Andrew Blair]

I really like a few thing's about Donut's design.

1. Open field. Makes it really easy for everyone (Including spectators) to see and keep track of stuff.


2. Incorporation of something lighted.

[Kyle Love]

I still like the idea of using tires as scoring objects, not car tires, bike or motorcycle tires.

I would also like to see a game where, the game itself would change during the weekend. You could have two versions of the games, same rules (so basically just different sized goals...or move the goals around.) This would add a much more "interesting" aspect to the game.

...more to come later...I'm sure....

[=Martin=Taylor=]

Originally Posted by Kyle Love

I still like the idea of using tires as scoring objects, not car tires, bike or motorcycle tires.

Something like this was done in 1997. I wasn't there, but it looked REALLY cool.

[Andrew Blair]

Okay, I've got a pretty wild idea. All game pieces, preferably small (Golf balls?) are dispensed by 3 independent moving, well, dispensers. The dispensers move in wide, predictable arcs, making the drive very simple and very robust. They have lights for camera detection.

The strategy would be to pin them against a wall somewhere so that they wouldn't move anymore, then gather up pieces and drop them somewhere for points. There would be a rather large defensive battle for control of these slipery little things, and not only would teams have to wrangle the other alliance, but also their game pieces.


You could switch it around, using the moving goals for point drops, and have it similar to zone zeal, where the goals must be on your side for points.

*Afterthought*- Boy, Aim High is going to be hard to top...

[EricH]

My vision:

Field size and setup: Same size as for Aim High, driver stations at the ends. In the middle of the field are 5 mobile goals in a + shape. 2 alliances of 3 robots each are placed on the field (place TBD). Human players are at 6 loading stations on the long sides of the field (3 per side).

Goals: 5 mobile goals, each about 6-8 feet tall, with reflective tape on them (as in 2002) and possibly a green vertical bar. At each loading station, there is a goal similar to the corner goals this year. Each has a light over it that could be red or blue (explained later).

Scoring objects: footballs and large softballs.

The game starts with an autonomous mode of 15 seconds. The side goals' lights turn on red or blue in a random pattern. An auto scoring system scores the balls in each goal and counts the points (then tells the human scorers the points in each goal and what color it is). Each robot tries to score either in its own color goal or in the center goals. Winner gets to play defense in the next period. No bonus determined yet, but should be 5-15 points.

Periods run much the same as in Aim High. The side lights change color depending on the period. (Red score or blue score). Final period is free for all, and the side lights are random again. Instead of offense or defense, the periods would be preferred scoring time.

The twists: Any ball type may be scored in any place. Humans may only score in the center goals. Robots may only be loaded in the loading area where their human player is. mobile goals may be loaded in any place. After a robot has dumped a load, it may not load without leaving the loading zone. The same goes for loading, then dumping. No contact in the loading zones, however you are not allowed to use them as a safe zone. Any robot may score in any goal. Any robot may score in any goal at any time, however, the side goals count for only the team whose light is on.

The big finish: There are six 1-foot high platforms each big enough to hold one mobile goal or one robot, but not both. Three are at each end. A mobile goal on a platform counts, along with anything in it, for the alliance that owns the platform. Robots also count, but nothing in them does.

Suggested scoring:
Football in side goal: 2 points
Softball in side goal: 1 point
Football in center goal: 4 points if goal is on platform
Softball in center goal: 2 points if goal is on platform
Goal on platform: 10 points
Robot on platform: 5 points
Auto win bonus: TBD (5-15 points, not sure just what)
Human scoring in side goal: -5 points

[Donut]

I have finished my game in the post above.

Also, I would love to see a bizzare game piece for next year (either because of shape, size, or material). Think I mean you could have wheels, or logs, or racquet balls, or batons, or lawn chairs, or who knows what else.

And let's see if we can have a new field surface! Watch in amazement as all your traction devices become outdated!

[Tetraman]

Yo....

Take the way the Lego leauge works to FRC. Adding and subracting parts from your robot during competition.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Tetraman

Yo....

Take the way the Lego leauge works to FRC. Adding and subracting parts from your robot during competition.

You already can, as long as it's between matches and all parts together are under the weight limit. I'm pretty sure it would be a safety hazard if a team started changing their robot on-field during a match (not to mention taking all match).

[Billfred]

Let's try something different. As much as I love these big, hulking robots, I found out this season through FVC that smaller robots can be a hoot as well. (Plus they're cheaper to build, what with lower shipping weights and smaller material costs.)

So let's imagine a field about 24' square, with the player stations perpendicular to each other to form a diamond shape on the floor. (In theory, this could allow regionals with more space to run two fields, GTR-style, allow smaller venues to add more teams, or reduce the cost of shipping the field to off-seasons.) To the ends of the player stations are ball corrals, narrower than this year's and shorter. Robots shrink as well in both size and weight to fit the smaller field, although perhaps not as drastically.

Instead of the traditional 3v3, let's spice it up and make it 2v2v1. The sole objective of the loner robot is to attempt to keep the gap between the winning and losing scores to an absolute minimum, and would result in the ranking system looking something like the FVC arrangement from this season. While competing, any penalties would be added to their score instead of subtracted, and a DQ would result in them receiving the winning score as their score. In elimination rounds, the loner is not used.

To steal yet another item from Half-Pipe Hustle, let's use racquetballs for the game pieces. Several dozen of them are placed at midfield within a box taped off on the floor. More lines go from the box to the starting locations of each of the robots. Placed at the edge of the field, opposite the player stations, are several troughs with a backboard, the ones on the ends on hinges. The ones on hinges stay up unless pulled down, but they can be returned to their upright state by a properly-designed robot. Troughs are assigned to each alliance at random at the start of the match, using a Verbrugge-on-Einstein light.

Robots start out along the walls in front of their player stations, with the loner set up in the corner opposite the player stations. (One player station would remain empty during the match if the 2005-2006 player stations were used unless you made the field pentagonal, which, now that I think of it, would be interesting to see.) The fifteen-second autonomous portion of the match starts with robots going for the balls at midfield, scooping up balls and, if they're especially good, starting to score for their alliance.

The next thirty seconds of the match are played with the drivers and operators using special controls, each one using four momentary switches to control the robots--no joysticks yet. Successful teams can use either line tracking or the CMUcam to automatically navigate the field and score, while less-advanced teams could simply map the buttons to forwards/backwards/turn left/turn right. The remaining 1:30 are full-on human operations, like we've seen before.

During the match, robots are either directly dumping balls into their troughs, descoring the other alliance's balls either by sucking balls out or dumping them outright, propping up goals that are dumped, or playing defense against potential dumping. Human players can introduce balls through the corrals by the corners, either shooting for troughs or loading up other robots. Balls in static troughs are one point, while those in tippable troughs are good for three.

To finish the match, teams race to fit themselves inside the box of balls, which is conveniently sized to fit only two or three robots. Those fully inside receive a twenty-point bonus. (The loner cannot score in this regard, as he is officially neutral, but there is nothing stopping them from trying to fit in regardless.)

[Andrew Blair]

Here are the things I think are attainable, but oh so important.

1. Wide open field. The expansiveness, to with a few goodies (ramps, a few goals perhaps), allows the audience to see what's going on, the drivers to see what's going on, breakneck field crosings, and large potential for defense. Goals should be placed opposite their alliance to encourage defense. Defensive periods are good.

2. Real time scoring. This was a huge help to drivers, the audience, and the field crew. ( Well, maybe not the field crew at first...). It made it easy to follow, like a sporting event, easier to plan a course of mid-game action, and easier to set-up/ reset/ change-over the field between matches. Everything ran much smoother, especially by Atlanta.

My game envisionment? Similar to a football game. I'll try to render it out.