PUSH to Simplify the Game for 2002 ***Attention FIRST ***

[archiver]

Posted by Joe Ross at 04/19/2001 6:41 PM EST


College Student on team #330, Beach Bot, from Hope Chapel Academy and NASA/JPL , J&F Machine, and Raytheon.


In Reply to: Kevin for DJ! :^)
Posted by Kevin Sevcik on 04/19/2001 5:23 PM EST:



never heard of that before

[archiver]

Posted by Wayne Cokeley at 04/20/2001 12:50 AM EST


Coach on team #25, Raider Robotix, from North Brunswick Twp. H.S. and Bristol-Myers Squibb.


In Reply to: Re. General Suggitions for Next Year
Posted by Kyle Fenton on 04/19/2001 2:03 PM EST:



: The game next year should be all customizable.
: This is my suggestions for a next year's game

: 1. Make it either 2v2 or all 4 working together. If it is
: 2v2 than your main objective would be to will be to
: rack up the balls and head to the center to a fight
: for the big points for the main objecting in the
: center. If I is all 4 working together, you would have
: a chance at higher score but have a harder time
: getting a score. It should be integrated so that if
: one robot doesn't perform its task than it will hung
: the other robots, causing the whole alliance to
: loose major points. This will cause the game to be
: more exciting and will satisfy everybody (meaning if
: they want 2v2 or all 4).

: 2. The game field next year will probably be the
: same as this years and last years. Rectangular
: shape with diamond plate stations. With also the
: main objective in the middle with balls or floppies
: at the human station and at the other side of the
: field.

: 3. The game next year should be on multiple
: terrain. Adds the excitement for the game instead
: of just all carpet. Instead of just carpet FIRST can
: add maybe metal surfaces, grit tape surfaces, dirt,
: and maybe some water.

: 4. Hire DJ's that actually plays a variety of music.
: This year it must have been just like 4 songs
: repeated over and over again.

: 5. Have more team pictures stations. Remember
: when you take your picture for your team where it
: says FIRST in the background. Add about 1 or two
: more. I remember waiting there for about an hour
: in the hot sun.

: 6. Have a little something extra, like a lining or
: something, so the floors, in very heavy rain don't
: flood the pit area or the competition. This year that
: was really annoying and dangerous (with the
: electronics and all).

: 7. If you have a media pass for the indoor field in
: the nationals, make it so that you have like you got
: a clear view for the field. This year the indoor
: "media station" was just another place where you
: could sit down. I mean we could have use those
: "special chairs" that no one else was using. Only
: Einstein really had a good place to take video
: shots. Another thing, only be up in the media booth
: if your team is out there, or ready to compete. This
: eliminates the crowding factor by only having about
: 5 people (4 teams + the guy who is taping it for
: FIRST).

: 8. Make Epcot gives us more of the parking lot so
: we can add two more divisions than last year's.
: The side of the parking lot that said they had for
: their "real customers" were no more than 10 cars
: scattered. Believe me they can give us more room.

: 9. Have a separate screen maybe on the tents
: outside or something for the
: 1.) Chairman's Award 2.) Animation
: This will give teams more and better access to see
: the other team's hard work. If it is a Chairman's
: Award Paper submission than FIRST can scan it in
: and on a big screen might be readable.

: 9. Split up the judges to a specific division. This
: will give a more equal and better responses for
: awards.

: 11. Practice should be a little more exciting.
: Because you are waiting and do nothing that whole
: day. Maybe that’s when speakers will come in and
: demonstrate something for us or something.

:
: There is many things I hated about this year but I
: will explain that another time.

: P.S. I hope that more teams next year will give out
: awards. Nothing big, but just something to give to
: other teams that recognizes their effort in helping
: you out. It is almost like a team award can almost
: be as satisfy as a FIRST award because someone
: looked at your team and recognized your effort.


Hey Kyle- My old fogey suggestion about the music.
The songs were great, might use some variation but that's fine. My problem is the incredible noise level in both the pits and the arena. I would like to see less noise in the already noisy pits and save the loud stuff for out on the arena floor. The music THERE would be a welcome prelude to the entering of the arena.
Every year I go home hoarse and half deaf from the competition and it is nearly impossible to find a quiet place to talk to your team. This may be a generational thing but the constant ringing in my ears probably means something...

[archiver]

Posted by Ameya Agaskar at 04/22/2001 7:00 PM EST


Student on team #293, Bullbots, from Hopewell Valley Central High School and Janssen/Morehouse Engineering/Lucent/Worldwater/.


In Reply to: Re. General Suggitions for Next Year
Posted by Kyle Fenton on 04/19/2001 2:03 PM EST:



: 1. Make it either 2v2 or all 4 working together. If it is
: 2v2 than your main objective would be to will be to
: rack up the balls and head to the center to a fight
: for the big points for the main objecting in the
: center. If I is all 4 working together, you would have
: a chance at higher score but have a harder time
: getting a score. It should be integrated so that if
: one robot doesn't perform its task than it will hung
: the other robots, causing the whole alliance to
: loose major points. This will cause the game to be
: more exciting and will satisfy everybody (meaning if
: they want 2v2 or all 4).

There could be a scoring system like last year's, with one difference. In the qualifying rounds, the losing alliance keeps its score and the winning alliance gets 3 times the losing alliances score; but if they tie, both alliances get 5 (or some factor higher than 3) times their score. In the elimination rounds, this would be abandoned, and whoever gets the highest score advances.

[archiver]

Posted by Kevin Sevcik at 04/23/2001 4:57 AM EST


College Student on team #57, Leopards, from BT Washington and the High School for Engineering Professions and Exxon, Kellog Brown & Root, Powell Electrical.


In Reply to: Re. General Suggitions for Next Year
Posted by Ameya Agaskar on 04/22/2001 7:00 PM EST:



I like this idea, except there doesn't seem to be any incentive to NOT work together. If you're always going to do incredibly better by having a tied score, then besides punishing inept teams, what's the point of having the option? I think this would only make sense if there's some incentive to compete against each other. Granted, I'm generally against a full fledged competitive competition, but I am for competitions that make sense....

[archiver]

Posted by Matt Leese at 04/19/2001 2:05 PM EST


College Student on team #73, Tigerbolt, from Edison Technical HS and Alstom & Fiber Technologies & RIT.


In Reply to: PUSH to Simplify the Game for 2002 ***Attention FIRST ***
Posted by Andy Baker on 04/19/2001 11:31 AM EST:



I agree with you completely. I think the impact of a
simplified game would not only be for the media
however. 73 had not been in competition since 1998 and
after the game was released, a comment made by one of
the teachers who had previously participated (from
'93-'98) said that the game was just to complex. I
also was told that one of our students made the comment
that the SME Robotics Competition was more interesting
than FIRST. The game this year had some neat ideas
(balancing the bridge was one of them), but it tried to
do too much. I highly doubt that we'll see simpler
games with 4 robots to an alliance because if that were
to happen there wouldn't be much for all the robots to
do. It's also much harder to explain how you win
without any onfield competition (it took my team until
week 3 or 4 to understand). I think that more than
anything this year will be a learning experience for
FIRST about what works and what doesn't.

Matt who hopes that FIRST learns the right things from
this years competition....

[archiver]

Posted by Patrick Dingle at 04/19/2001 3:14 PM EST


College Student on team #639, Red B^2, from Ithaca High School and Cornell University.


In Reply to: Re: PUSH to Simplify the Game for 2002 ***Attention FIRST **
Posted by Matt Leese on 04/19/2001 2:05 PM EST:



I agree with both Andy and Matt on this one... I don't think there's much more to cover... but I think I'd like to point out that as a rookie team, many of our students were disappointed in this year's game, and frankly there was much less enthusiasm this year about FIRST than i've ever seen before. The few teams that actually did cheer in the stands were likely not even doing it because they were excited about the game -- but because there is an award for making noise. I just don't see the logic in this one -- isn't inspiring students a whole lot more important than this everyone-work-together nonsense that seems to turn more people away than anything? Anyway back to the point -- i agree the game is way to complex and I believe that is why it is so difficult to get any sort of publicity.

Patrick

: I agree with you completely. I think the impact of a
: simplified game would not only be for the media
: however. 73 had not been in competition since 1998 and
: after the game was released, a comment made by one of
: the teachers who had previously participated (from
: '93-'98) said that the game was just to complex. I
: also was told that one of our students made the comment
: that the SME Robotics Competition was more interesting
: than FIRST. The game this year had some neat ideas
: (balancing the bridge was one of them), but it tried to
: do too much. I highly doubt that we'll see simpler
: games with 4 robots to an alliance because if that were
: to happen there wouldn't be much for all the robots to
: do. It's also much harder to explain how you win
: without any onfield competition (it took my team until
: week 3 or 4 to understand). I think that more than
: anything this year will be a learning experience for
: FIRST about what works and what doesn't.

: Matt who hopes that FIRST learns the right things from
: this years competition....

[archiver]

Posted by Hymnson (Captain) at 04/19/2001 2:59 PM EST


Student on team #419, The Rambots, from Boston College High School and UMass Boston and Modern Assistance Programs, Inc..


In Reply to: PUSH to Simplify the Game for 2002 ***Attention FIRST ***
Posted by Andy Baker on 04/19/2001 11:31 AM EST:



I agree that simpifying the game would make
FIRST a more media friendly competition but what
would WE get out of it? Sure, I'd love to be the
center of attention, especially on tv's nationwide
and such. Who doesn't love to be on TV? But by
"dumbing" the game down, we aren't challenging
ourselves and its not fun anymore; it might actually
make it worse. If the game was so simple, any
idiot could join a team and participate inorder to go
on the trip to Florida.

But I think that by making the game complex and
difficult, it really shows which team members are
dedicated and genuinely interested in participating.

Also, as Dean Kamen stated during closing
ceremonies, "we shouldn't compare ourselves to
sports." Its what makes us unique, if we were just
like any other sport (if not the same by replacing
the players with robots). Where would the diversity
and interest be in that? In other words, by
branching away from sports, its what makes FIRST
so special. I like it the way it is and I enjoy the
complexity cuz it'll "make ya think harder." Be more
creative and innovative. Isn't that the goal of FIRST
anyways?

[archiver]

Posted by P.J. Baker at 04/19/2001 3:50 PM EST


Engineer on team #177, Bobcat Robotics, from South Windsor High School and International Fuel Cells.


In Reply to: PUSH to Simplify the Game for 2002 ***Attention FIRST ***
Posted by Andy Baker on 04/19/2001 11:31 AM EST:



Without the score multiplication, I would submit that this year’s game is almost right from prime time. Here’s why:

1) Multiple tasks – which leads to many different robot designs
2) Multiple levels of difficulty – adds strategy for viewer to consider
3) Race against the clock – adds excitement

Below are my thoughts on why these are good game features:

1) There were only 4 main tasks in this year’s game (5 if you count stretcher pulling):

- Score Large Balls
- Cross The Field
- Score Small Balls
- Balance the bridge

This is just about the right number to keep things interesting without having too many things to keep track of. It was also easy to tell (except for the small number of cases where the bridge did balance in an awkward position) whether or not the task had been accomplished. This wasn’t the case in ’99 or ’00: Were the floppies more than 8’ high? Is the robot more than 2” off the ground? How many of those 4 tangled robots are actually hanging from the bar?

2) The four tasks basically had 4 different levels of difficulty: Simple: crossing the field (although it was harder than many thought); Easy: filling goals w/small balls from the Human; Moderate: Scoring the Large Balls; Very Difficult: Balancing with both goals. Since we got to decide what level of difficulty to go for, the game had a very interesting strategy component. The strategy part is a little difficult to digest right off the bat, but if we had a series of shows I would imagine that people would grow to appreciate it as much as we do.

3) The race against the clock component of the game was big win this year. It made the matches much more exciting to watch, especially in the elimination rounds. This was much more exciting than the ’99 and ’00 games which were often over once one alliance had established control of the puck or the bar (although it was fun to try and take that control away). Even though the silence when things went wrong was a little disconcerting, the cheers when a big score was put up with only a second or two to spare easily made up for it.


From a random viewer’s point of view, I would guess that the hardest thing to contend with would be the score multipliers. If there were just straight point values for the tasks (i.e. 100 pts. For each balanced goal, 2 points for each second remaining on the clock), I don’t think that the scoring would be too hard to digest. Assuming that it’s a series of shows, this type of scoring would not be too hard for the multi-episode viewer to understand.

As far as 2 v. 2 or 4 working together, I doubt that it matters as much as people would like to think. As long as the matches were exciting, people would be willing to watch.

So, there are three things that I think would be good ideas for the framework of the game:

1) It should consists of multiple tasks – but only 3 or 4
2) The Tasks should have differing levels of difficulity
3) There should be a “race against the clock” element

In addition, I would also suggest that they avoid the use of multipliers in the scoring – they are the main reason that this year’s game was difficult to explain.

I think that a game conceived within this framework would be suitable for TV.

The big problem though, is actually getting it on TV. I’m not sure exactly how to do this, but my first guess would be the following: Allow a TV production crew to help Dean and Woodie develop the game. As long as D & W were willing to stand their ground, the TV folks could help push the game in directions that would make it easier to televise.


That’s it for now. Sorry for being so long winded. Hopefully this will help spark some further discussion.


P.J. Baker
Team #177

[archiver]

Posted by Kris Verdeyen at 04/19/2001 4:06 PM EST


Engineer on team #118, Robonauts, from CCISD and NASA - Johnson Space Center and Friends.


In Reply to: PUSH to Simplify the Game for 2002 ***Attention FIRST ***
Posted by Andy Baker on 04/19/2001 11:31 AM EST:



The best thing that a complex game has going for it is that it lends itself to many different ways to win. A simple game (like basketball) will lead to hundreds of robots that can pick the ball up, and shoot it. It will come down to whoever makes the most reliable robot and has the best drivers wins.

Now, I know that reliability and driving are very important parts of engineering, but FIRST is "For Inspiriation". I've never looked at a Honda Civic, in all its reliable glory, and felt inspired. Inspiration comes from thinking about problems that have many obvious solutions, all of them equally bad, and discovering one out of the blue that blows them away.

I think that FIRST needs to keep giving us complex games, and we need to keep finding creative solutions to do what the game calls for.

[archiver]

Posted by Andy Baker at 04/19/2001 5:24 PM EST


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


In Reply to: Re: Simplification - A dissention
Posted by Kris Verdeyen on 04/19/2001 4:06 PM EST:



: The best thing that a complex game has going for it is that it lends itself to many different ways to win. A simple game (like basketball) will lead to hundreds of robots that can pick the ball up, and shoot it. It will come down to whoever makes the most reliable robot and has the best drivers wins.

Aha... basketball is not simple. There would be some shooters, but there would also be some dunkers, blockers (defenders), and passers. Definitely, basketball is not a simple game... plus it would be easy for everyone to understand.

Imagine this:

A passer-bot brings the ball up the court and passes it to a shooter-bot, who is defended by a blocker-bot. The shooter-bot has to use picks or screens to get open for the pass from the passer-bot. Once the shooter-bot gets the ball, it tries to shoot. If it misses (which would be often), the dunker-bot could rebound and slam it home!

A 3 on 3 game would be pretty cool. FIRST could run the competition like a Gus Macker tournament... many teams play short games and by the end of the weekend, there is a winner.

Maybe the rest of you are a bit afraid of us Hoosiers stomping all over your 'bots out there on the hardwood.

I definitely know that people around here would simply go "ga-ga" over a basketball game played by robots. I can see demos during the halftime shows of Purdue-IU games, and also at a Pacer game.

Simple it would not be. There could be defense, fouls, lane violations, and lots of action... "just look at those two robots banging it up down in the low post!"

Also, you would see some robots play "above the rim" while others would be speedy and be looking out to steal the ball away from the opposition.

That's just what I think... maybe I've lived in Indiana too long.

Andy B.

[archiver]

Posted by Adrian Wong at 04/19/2001 5:30 PM EST


Student on team #596, Hopkinton Hillers, from Hopkinton High School and Zymark, EMC, and Computer Associates.


In Reply to: Basketball robots
Posted by Andy Baker on 04/19/2001 5:24 PM EST:



Good insights. I'd like to add that there would be an extra shift toward communication between the teams as well.

While the idea of a basketball-themed robot game is exciting, I wonder how well each robot/operator would work together to form a cohesive team. How will the teams coordinate with each other? (Perhaps the introduction of headsets and microphones on the field?)

Seems like an interesting idea to pursue. Plus, this would become a good selling point to entice students into the FIRST program.

[archiver]

Posted by Kevin Sevcik at 04/19/2001 11:26 PM EST


College Student on team #57, Leopards, from BT Washington and the High School for Engineering Professions and Exxon, Kellog Brown & Root, Powell Electrical.


In Reply to: Basketball robots
Posted by Andy Baker on 04/19/2001 5:24 PM EST:



I think the point Kris was trying to make was that the tasks in basketball are relatively simple and easy to accomplish. Point, being, there wouldn't be much variety or creativity in the robots. As you just pointed out, the basketball game would break down into just 4 types of robots. All the robots would either be big and pushy or quick and agile. So you've got just 8 kinds of robots. While this year, you could have limbo bots, wedges, big ballers, off bridge balancers, on bridge balancers, bridge flippers, small ball scorers, etc.
I think the whole point here is that more complex games encourage trying different approaches to the problem. Everybody already knows how to play basketball, so there wouldn't be any robots that make you say, "Wow, I didn't think of doing that." The same goes for a simple game. Everyone will rather quickly figure out how things should be done, and creativity will play a much smaller role in the competition.
Anyways, those are my thought on this. I'm slowly reading my way up this thread, so I'll probably repeat myself a few posts above this.

[archiver]

Posted by Wayne Cokeley at 04/20/2001 12:17 AM EST


Coach on team #25, Raider Robotix, from North Brunswick Twp. H.S. and Bristol-Myers Squibb.


In Reply to: Basketball robots
Posted by Andy Baker on 04/19/2001 5:24 PM EST:



: : The best thing that a complex game has going for it is that it lends itself to many different ways to win. A simple game (like basketball) will lead to hundreds of robots that can pick the ball up, and shoot it. It will come down to whoever makes the most reliable robot and has the best drivers wins.

: Aha... basketball is not simple. There would be some shooters, but there would also be some dunkers, blockers (defenders), and passers. Definitely, basketball is not a simple game... plus it would be easy for everyone to understand.

: Imagine this:

: A passer-bot brings the ball up the court and passes it to a shooter-bot, who is defended by a blocker-bot. The shooter-bot has to use picks or screens to get open for the pass from the passer-bot. Once the shooter-bot gets the ball, it tries to shoot. If it misses (which would be often), the dunker-bot could rebound and slam it home!

: A 3 on 3 game would be pretty cool. FIRST could run the competition like a Gus Macker tournament... many teams play short games and by the end of the weekend, there is a winner.

: Maybe the rest of you are a bit afraid of us Hoosiers stomping all over your 'bots out there on the hardwood.

: I definitely know that people around here would simply go "ga-ga" over a basketball game played by robots. I can see demos during the halftime shows of Purdue-IU games, and also at a Pacer game.

: Simple it would not be. There could be defense, fouls, lane violations, and lots of action... "just look at those two robots banging it up down in the low post!"

: Also, you would see some robots play "above the rim" while others would be speedy and be looking out to steal the ball away from the opposition.

: That's just what I think... maybe I've lived in Indiana too long.

: Andy B.

I really doubt if FIRST would ever consider robotic basketball for two reasons;
1. it would glorify and give credence to professional sports and look like FIRST was trying to imitate them- and Dean Kamen would never do that.
2. there are several robotic basketball games around the world, mostly in Asia and on the small robot scale. I doubt if FIRST would want to look like they are copying any of them.

The idea of an original game will most likely always be in FIRST's minds. That's fine- but lets see some team vs team interactions again.

WC

[archiver]

Posted by Kris Verdeyen at 04/20/2001 6:18 PM EST


Engineer on team #118, Robonauts, from CCISD and NASA - Johnson Space Center and Friends.


In Reply to: Basketball robots
Posted by Andy Baker on 04/19/2001 5:24 PM EST:



: That's just what I think... maybe I've lived in Indiana too long.

Actually, Andy, I grew up in Indiana, and just moved to Texas not quite a year ago.

It seems Indiana teams kick everyone's butt at all the other FIRST games, why would robo-basketball be any different?

Kris

[archiver]

Posted by Jeremy Davis at 04/19/2001 4:21 PM EST


Student on team #422, Mech Techs, from Governor's School and Verizon/AMF Bakery Systems.


In Reply to: PUSH to Simplify the Game for 2002 ***Attention FIRST ***
Posted by Andy Baker on 04/19/2001 11:31 AM EST:



: Make the game media-friendly and spectator-friendly. Make the game easy to understand, so it will be played on TV.

If we're going to be in the habit of comparing ourselves to sports, please name a single one that is simple other than perhaps golf. It takes years for people to understand the rules of a game, especially if they don't watch it day in and day out. The fact is, sports are complicated. The reason FIRST isn't on TV is that people are more interested in people competing than robots competing.

But besides the fact that its not all that different from sports, simple games in FIRST are boring. You have to have a plethora of strategies available, or all the robots will look alike, and alliances would result in useless robots. So why not do away with alliances? Because once again, this adds considerably to the challenge and interest of the game. To have to strategize with another team in only 2 minutes before you compete can be incredibly interesting and intense. Not to mention having robots working together produces more amazing results for the cameras. Once again, most sports involve teams, why shouldn't FIRST?

Just some thoughts.

-Jeremy Davis