Next Year's Game?

[Robert Cawthon]

Now that Atlanta is over, it is time once again to start the rumors and ideas for next year's game. What are your ideas?

[alicen]

i want to see stairs!

[Pjohn1959]

Less human player...

[Taylor]

...more cowbell!


I would expect a game with unique flooring a la this year's FRC and FTC offerings.

[jblay]

i would love to see them bring back the pull up bar.

[d.courtney]

What I would like to see in next years game:

- non spherical game pieces
- human players having less impact on the game
- robot oriented end game task, preferably as exciting, difficult, and as significant as 2004's end game was
- no rules discouraging doing well
- no more game themes (like they had this year)

[delsaner]

Before Kickoff, some people on my team were talking about an underwater game (probably because one of the clues was a fish).
*shrugs*
Personally, I am looking for a game with a simple concept, but a challenging task.

Can't wait for next year!

[AcesJames]

Human players threw the game this year for most teams, except for those with amazing robots (dumpers such as the winning alliance had), so next year I'd like to see something that relies a bit more on the robot itself. People said driving around would be tough this year as well, and it didn't seem like many teams had an advantage over another, aside from being good at pinning, or the "Bump and Dump", as some called it Also, from what I've seen, spectators get bored by Lunacy, and find it hard to follow.

So overall

Less reliability on human player

More reliability on robot itself

Incorporation of something into the game that makes one element of the robot able to swing the game, instead of the HP**

Make the game easier to follow, and more exciting for spectators

Make the game more interesting and challenging for veteran teams*

*I've seen rookie teams, especially at week one regionals, who have a robot in shambles of wire, wheels, and aluminum, while vet teams had a fully functional bot, but looking at the rookie teams at the championships, they were right up there with the oldest vets, who were sorta disappointed with this years game.

**This year was a year where the HP really stood out in the game, and could easily throw it, depending on the alliance and team itself. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but veteran teams weren't impressed.

[1086VEX]

i'd like to see more robot interaction like we had in 07 and 09 especially between alliance members. im also kinda expecing them to try to level out the playing fiel like they did this year with the wheels and floor.

[Jared Russell]

I want a barrier in the middle of the field that presents a challenge in crossing, yet crossing it provides a significant game benefit. Say a 12" wall separating the two halves of the field.

I liked that Lunacy took veteran teams outside of their comfort zone. Too often in years prior the veterans would take their drive base down off the shelf and not have to think about it. Even in 2004 when there were steps, many teams really had no problems if they couldn't climb them.

[typharn91]

i think they should do something with less human playering would be nice a bar would be nice and maybe something were a couple team s might make a robot with a drive train similiar to the cajuan crawler i think that would be awesome

and i would like some defense would be nice they added it again this year but not that many teams saw it as important an di think if either of those alliances had soem D they coulda taken out the best scorers on thier opposing alliance in the finals

[A_Reed]

Go the opposite direction with the flooring....VELCRO!

If the bond is strong enough it will provide an equally slow and boring game as the majority of Lunacy matches provided. Although I sense the scrapping of a few CIMs in the process of driving

I also think they need to bring back the big ending. Weighed appropriately to the rest of the possible points. Something that not everyone can do but at the same time does not require a substantial weight requirement to accomplish (i.e 2007s "Rampbots" ). I am thinking more like 2003, king of the hill--it was a fight to keep position and some teams specialized at this task with suction and brakes-- and 2004, the chin-up bar--limited positions on the bar, not every robot specialized at the task, but still did not req. large weight cache to be set aside for it either.

The 2006 bonus was alright, it did not require specialization but it was also no contest when getting up to the top of the ramp, they were on opposite ends of the field. the only challenge was getting 3 on 1 ramp.

Basically I think if they do include an endgame it should:

-limit the space to five, this creates competition for space and provides an advantage to the alliance who gets there more efficiently.

-Make it simple enough for rookies to complete/accomplish while also making it challenging.

enough rant, an idea popped up.

Playing off of 2004, you take the bar and you literally raise it, at the beginning of the match is starts at 5', until you hit the 1:30 mark then it starts to rise at a constant speed up to the 10' height at the 1:00 mark, continuing up to 15' with :30 left in the game. You would have to weigh what you can do on the floor against what you can do if you hang and at what point you would have to cut bait and leave.

[Scott Carpman]

I'd like to see a return of the triangle, it's been 5 years since Triple Play.

[Andrew Schreiber]

A more 3-D field. 2004 with the chin-up bar and the steps was cool. Even if we just had a grid of 2x4's across the middle 10 feet of the field it would force teams to develop a way of crossing no man's land. (Walker bots anyone?)

A reason to change robot orientation (I mean similar to flop bots but on command instead of only once)

No More Bumpers

CAN utilization on the Jaguars.

No more penalization for excellence.

Multiple game pieces. ex, Red alliance has to score tetras, Blue Alliance has to score Bins. Green Alliance has to score soccer balls. Force teams to come up with multiple manipulators in a year or a very general purpose one.

Three 2 team alliances. We seem stuck on 2 teams, mix it up a little. This won't change the number of matches at all for eliminations, just instead of 8 alliances we have 12 but only 1 pick each. (Serpentine debate ENDED!)

A game piece that is readily available and not too expensive.

No more exotic flooring, stick with carpet, most teams already have carpet to practice on.

Less reliance on a single supplier to provide the wheels.

Breakout boards for the CRIO that don't look like they will explode if a dog sneezes.

Driver stations that are reliable.

No judgment calls for refs or inspectors. (G22 was, in my opinion, up to the discretion of the refs entirely)

No more attempts at "leveling the playing field"

More support for struggling veteran teams instead of the constant mantra of "Start new teams" we need one of "Support the existing base"

I might come up with more later but for now I would say I have a short list

[typharn91]

Originally Posted by A_Reed

Playing off of 2004, you take the bar and you literally raise it, at the beginning of the match is starts at 5', until you hit the 1:30 mark then it starts to rise at a constant speed up to the 10' height at the 1:00 mark, continuing up to 15' with :30 left in the game. You would have to weigh what you can do on the floor against what you can do if you hang and at what point you would have to cut bait and leave.

i think going off that i dea though you would also have to have diff point values for when you got on the bar or instead of making it raise up do a three level bar like the goals in '06 have two low ones 8"-10" and one high one like 12"-15" and off corse the higher would be owrth more points but could only fit 1 robot and teh two lower ones could both fit two