Next Year's Game?

[Creator Mat]

i think a simple idea would be to have "flying" robots. Make a ramp or something to jump would be really cool. or haveing a step system to jump onto.


I know the danger factor with the ramp would be huge tho (falling 120+ lbs robot not good)

[blackiceskier]

Originally Posted by bigbeezy

FTC was cool this year with the uneven floor. Maybe we have hills in portions of the floor that would be difficult to go over and if you could its faster and easier to score; but to keep it simple for rookies and not as "elite" teams, they can drive around the hills and still compete. Or better yet those teams could have another way to score that would have simplier terrain to traverse.

I say bring back the Tetra!

yes its true that the FTC game had diffrent terrain but there was no bonus if they were used. they also did not stop play it was easy to go around and there was no problem with them. it would be nice if they were going to use diffrent terrain in the future to give a bonus if they are used( if the terrain is not a large protion of the surface

[SuperJake]

I think it would be neat to have a bigger playing field with more robots. Watching the closing matches on Einstein was difficult from the 2nd floor on the far side of the Curie field. Even in some of the regionals hosted in stadiums... from the stands, the field looks really small.

This would also solve the problem of getting too many teams at one regional while still maintaining a good amount of rounds to play. Maybe a 4v4 or 3v3v3.

I also want to bring back the huge rotating beacon lights. They were a pain in the butt to mount and find weight for, but EVERYONE knew which alliance you were on. Either that, or require a lot more LEDs that can change colors to identify an alliance color.

[Robert Cawthon]

Originally Posted by SuperJake

I also want to bring back the huge rotating beacon lights. They were a pain in the butt to mount and find weight for, but EVERYONE knew which alliance you were on. Either that, or require a lot more LEDs that can change colors to identify an alliance color.

I would love to see an LED light, cylindrical in shape or maybe half of a sphere, that would show red or blue, depending on the alliance, from any directions, even the stands. Select a 3rd color for a disabled status and maybe a 4th color to show voluntary autonomous mode.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by SuperJake

I also want to bring back the huge rotating beacon lights. They were a pain in the butt to mount and find weight for, but EVERYONE knew which alliance you were on. Either that, or require a lot more LEDs that can change colors to identify an alliance color.

If those come back, they should be left out of the weight. And have better covers.

In 2003, I was volunteering on Galileo. I'm pretty sure it was the Techno-Ticks that seemed to break the domes, on average, once per match. That may have been due to mounting or driver error, but going under the bar for them meant plastic on the field. My team didn't have that problem, as our light was mounted so it had to go below the frame if we went that route.

[Dan Petrovic]

Originally Posted by EricH

If those come back, they should be left out of the weight. And have better covers.

In 2003, I was volunteering on Galileo. I'm pretty sure it was the Techno-Ticks that seemed to break the domes, on average, once per match. That may have been due to mounting or driver error, but going under the bar for them meant plastic on the field. My team didn't have that problem, as our light was mounted so it had to go below the frame if we went that route.

I seem to remember them having their light mounted on a springy platform so that it would dip down as they went under the bar.

I may be thinking of another team, but either way, it apparently wasn't an effective solution.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by InfernoX14

I seem to remember them having their light mounted on a springy platform so that it would dip down as they went under the bar.

I may be thinking of another team, but either way, it apparently wasn't an effective solution.

That would be them. Smash! (Unless they did it at low speed, which didn't happen often.) 4 pieces of surgical tubing+platform+light+bar=debris.

[wo-bot 141]

NO MORE BUMPERS where did the tough metal on metal go? the bumpers make the robots look like bumper cars. i want to see damage, this way we can see how a team can make repairs in time before the next match. make a robot that can take a good hit. that's what i want to see in next years game. i understand that in 2008 if you didn't have bumpers you weren't going to last long in this game. Bumpers can go.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by InfernoX14

I seem to remember them having their light mounted on a springy platform so that it would dip down as they went under the bar.

I may be thinking of another team, but either way, it apparently wasn't an effective solution.

188 had a light on a pivot in 2003, spring-loaded with surgical tubing; it never broke during two regionals and the Championship. We'd just drive full speed (i.e. around 12 ft/s) under the bar, without regard for the light. It never seemed to matter.

Originally Posted by EricH

If those come back, they should be left out of the weight.

I wouldn't really mind if they were part of the weight: everyone would be stuck with them. My bigger concern is that FIRST doesn't pick a model that has a grounded frame (as in 2000–2002).

[Jared Russell]

Originally Posted by wo-bot 141

NO MORE BUMPERS where did the tough metal on metal go? the bumpers make the robots look like bumper cars. i want to see damage, this way we can see how a team can make repairs in time before the next match. make a robot that can take a good hit. that's what i want to see in next years game. i understand that in 2008 if you didn't have bumpers you weren't going to last long in this game. Bumpers can go.

I would settle for optional bumpers. Give teams the option of protecting their robot (enabling some of the cool construction methods we've seen in the past couple years - there was a reason you didn't see many monocoque or sheet metal robots around in 2003), but also give them the option of eschewing bumpers for aesthetic or gameplay purposes.

However, please keep wedges illegal and restrict contact to the bumper zone (even if there are no bumpers). Otherwise you will see a proliferation of wedge bots because anyone who doesn't have one will be at a huge disadvantage (in most games anyhow).

[IceStorm]

Originally Posted by EricH

Optional bumpers. Please.

Failing that, I'll take bumper rules that are crystal clear from Kickoff.

Or have like 5 very experienced mentors given the rules about 2 hours before kick off locked in a room with no technology, then have a special segment during kickoff called ," We're lazy and want to cut the Q&A forum feedback in half, so here are people to ask question that we will answer!"

[Enigma's puzzle]

Originally Posted by Chexposito

I think there should be moveable obstacles, like if they did it this year, it would be a fake boulder and you could move it to slow others down.

What if they threw a couple of track balls on the field that had no scoring opportunity but instead they were just barriers? i would really like to see some sort of nonscoring piece that added to the complexity of the game, they are a kind of monkey wrench, intangible barrier. Or like ringers in Rack and Roll, they become useless barriers after autonomous.

[BT987]

i dont know what its going to be but i hope FIRST makes up for lunacy and has the best game yet.

[Creator Mat]

I understand people not wanting bumpers. They can be a hassle to make, put on, and take off. But are they really a limitation in a design aspect? such as our team wanted to do X but because of bumpers we had to do the not as good Y.

[MrForbes]

One big thing this year was that many teams wanted to make a narrow robot, with a wide harvester at the front, and the bumpers made that impossible.