Game Design

[archiver]

Posted by Andy Baker, Engineer on team #45, TechnoKats, from Kokomo High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 5/6/99 10:30 AM MST


In Reply to: Game Design posted by Dodd Stacy on 5/6/99 8:47 AM MST:



: Lots of people like the alliance innovation (I do), but nobody likes the impact on their team of being paired with a 'less capable' team (or a no show) in the Qualifiers.

: I propose that alliances be continued as at the Nationals, with no-shows and dead bots during the Qualifying rounds replaced by subs from a volunteer standby pool. This would have totally avoided the problem at the Nats and is easy to organize.

I totally agree. I think the alliance concept is worth the unlucky pairings. I also think that the volunteer idea is a very good and not too hard to implement.

I also like the games which one ball (or object) is used. We would keep the contact, make the scoring simpler, and increase crowd appeal... I can see it now... 'the Walled Lake Monster-bot launches a 5 pointer from the platform to win... BOOM BABY!'

Also, the stadium approach is perfect. The Great Lakes Regional in Yipsilanti had a great venue, the basketball arena at Western Michigan Univ... perfect setup for competition (but the pits were cramped).

One idea that I haven't heard yet... multiple games (or rules) for the same competition. Get this, during a competition, day one would be every team for themselves, day two would be alliances, and the game could be slightly different (different strategies, obstacles, whatever). Remember the show 'American Gladiators' where there would be multiple contests? Think about it... 'Robotic Gladiators' could take place where one contest would focus on a robot's speed and agility, then the next contest could focus on power and contact, and the next maybe timing and strategy... you get the idea.

I realize that this idea is VERY crazy... but I did want to throw it out there for the rest of you to chew on it.

Whaddya think?

Andy B.