[FTC]: 2009/2010 FTC game design

[Mushrooshi]

I would like to have a game where a hard to accomplish action "Turns the tides" on a game.

Ok. Lets imagine:

Red Scoring Elements
White Scoring Elements
Blue Scoring Elements.

Now, there is a center goal.

red scoring for red
blue scoring for blue

What about white?

Maybe it could be a large/heavy/difficult goal. A single large goal, that say, if brought to... the blue side... the white balls would count for blue. if the large goal was moved to the red side, white would count for red. Something cool like this.

I was also thinking, maybe in the middle, a large rotating platform. Free rotating, or motor rotating, it would be cool. Motor rotating could add a physical barrier to the game, whilst a robot-pushed spinning platform could be used strategicly.

Think of how much harder Face Off would be if the robots could actually rotate the diamond shaped platform in the middle.

A dynamic arena in general would be great. Mild combat (Flipping) would be nice too, but to an extent. We don't want multihundred dollar robots being mashed up. Faceoff would be very different if you could lift robots out and away.

[Rick TYler]

Originally Posted by Mushrooshi

I would like to have a game where a hard to accomplish action "Turns the tides" on a game.(...)

You've largely described "Hangin' Around," the FVC game of two years ago. It's hard to design a game that the GDC hasn't already tried. (There was also a similar FRC game, but I don't know the name of it without looking it up...)

[595294001]

My main complaint about this year is that the peak is too low, many teams have achieved perfection, or almost. I would like to see a challenge where you have fewer team getting full/almost full score, and time left over Here are a few ways I see that happening

If you had objects that could be scored over and over (e.g. last years FRC scoring objects), because i find that this year, in the really competitive matches there is nothing to do in the last 40 seconds or more.

It might be cool if it incorporated autonomous into tele-op (Like if you had a shed in the middle to collect bonus items from, but the shed itself obstructed driver view).

It would also be cool to do something that almost recquired shooting (as long as they put treads in the new kit) and serious innovation. for example, imagine if the triangle goal were four or five feet tall, and was worht 20 points.

Lots of people have put forward the "bridging the gap" idea, I think that that would be a great challenge, how about putting two long 2x4s on 3-4inch long sliders 15 inches apart, then the opponents could push the 2x4s around around, while you crossed the gap. Or if you preferred, you could build a robot that went through the gap, using ramps like in the current FTC.

A challenge with more manipulation would be cool too, like placing bars into slightly larger holes.

Over all, I would like an FTC challenge which would create larger challenges to try and solve, whether or not the teams were ale to would come out later, but I would like to see a challenge where you have fewer team getting full/almost full score, and time left over, and more teams being pushed to their limit.


PS

Originally Posted by Mushrooshi

...Think of how much harder Face Off would be if the robots could actually rotate the diamond shaped platform in the middle...

Or robot is such a beast, that it actually pushes the goal, when it rams into it to align.

[JesseK]

I forsee FIRST using alot of the 2009 FRC flooring for something in the future. I'd hate to see it go to waste sitting in a warehouse somewhere.

I'd also like to see more emphasis put on moving heavy items, which would force teams to focus on the engineering behind designs rather than simply throwing something together in a week. It would also take away from available battery power for the drive train, which would put less merit in building a bot for pushing and shoving.

[Mushrooshi]

Greater defense should also be an option. For example, maybe a dumpable scoring platform.

I just had an idea:

Ok. think of 2 shoeboxes. Now, make on blue, and the other red. Now, stick them together, to make a shape that is a 2 sided box.

THis can be to where a robot can score in it, and a robot can flip it over. It starts sideways, and a robot can tip it over, so say, should it land blue-side-up, all white scoring elements (See my previous post)in it count for blue. However, a red robot can flip it over, so it dumps all scoring elements, and the red side is up. It should be a great enough challenge for a robot to lift up.

[dooey100]

Originally Posted by 595294001

My main complaint about this year is that the peak is too low, many teams have achieved perfection, or almost.

I definitely agree with that one. Thats part of my thinking behind the very large radius goals in my first post: Even if a team makes a robot that can reach 3-4 feet, its unlikely that they be able to do it even moderately quickly.

A challenge with more manipulation would be cool too, like placing bars into slightly larger holes.

This one is awesome! and mabey there could be multiple size holes, with the smallest being worth the most points.

[ttldomination]

We shall see, but I'm pretty sure the GDC is snickering at us. I'm interested to see the game playing piece. Each year it's interesting and this year has been no different.

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by 595294001

My main complaint about this year is that the peak is too low, many teams have achieved perfection, or almost. I would like to see a challenge where you have fewer team getting full/almost full score, and time left over Here are a few ways I see that happening

I thought about this a bit yesterday as I mentored some middle school teams through their local VRC competition. I think many FTC teams achieved success more because they were forced into simplicity for FTC due to the lack of variety in the available FTC components. Think about it -- how many drive trains did we see at competition that were not cookie-cutter skid steer or swerve? I went to two FTC competitions and saw zero. Such simplicity may start an interest in engineering, but eventually it will downright bore students that do it from year to year. Perhaps FIRST can poke PITSCO until they either turn blue or provide teams with more variety. Things like bevel gears, differentials, conveyor belts, chain systems, and omni wheels would be useful. Technically we could make our own omni wheels from what's purchased on the website, but we'd rather not pay $100 per wheel... Finally, the LEGO motor mounts are a joke, but I actually don't mind only having four useful motors for heavy lifting; such limitation makes the students think hard about conserving energy in movement.

[Monty Python]

It would be nice if we had something with either fewer scoring objects, like Overdrive in 2008 (and I think an Overdrive like game for FTC would be pretty cool), and/or something with more manipulation (something like Rack and Roll in 2007). I also hear people talking about how much they love aim high, so that would probably be pretty cool also. I'd love to see human players in FTC, although I'm not quite sure how that would work (maybe having them in a box located a decent distance away from the field). However, as I said last year and as I'll say this year, we need an FTC version of Maize Craze!

[dooey100]

BUMP!!!

But with content:

What about goals that have to be "unlocked" in some way before they can be scored in? A cover of some sort, or mabey the goal itself is on a platform and has to be brought down.

[Mushrooshi]

This may sound really, really weird, but maybe a game where the field is upside down, and the robots are hanging... on rope or chicken-wire type material... think of it as a sort of a crane-game.

Or maybe a game where the robot or scoring pieces is an actual part of the field. Think of, say, a pit in the field, making it hard or treatureous to get across. Then there would be a giant cube that could be dropped into pit to drive over, or a robot could even jump in and jump out.

Another cool thing would be spongy material. Imagine how hard it would be for a robot the weight of the ones with this kit to use scrawny wheels to go across foam. I am not talking about the mat stuff, but think the super spongey stuff.

Now, this is a long shot, but a game where wheels, normally the default choice for mobility, are a bad idea, opening teams to use stuff like shufflers, tanks, or even walking...

A game should also have a speed vs strength tradeoff. In face off, it didn't matter if your robot was strongly geared, if it was slow, it wouldn't fare as well. If a game could be made that would give speedy robots an advantage (Speed to reach game pieces), but also strong robots an advantage (Pushing things...), that would be great to see.

Really cool would be if there was a ceiling over an area that would be only 12 inches or so. The size limit would be 18x18x18, but making a robot that can shrink to 12 inches or shorter would be awesome to see.

I honestly didn't see much hinderance with the rollers and the wavy green stuff. Infact, the rollers, comically, impeded one of our human team members more so than the robot... a team member grabbed some rollers, forgot to put it away, and stepped in it and flipped backwards...

[Abra Cadabra IV]

Originally Posted by Mushrooshi

I honestly didn't see much hinderance with the rollers and the wavy green stuff. Infact, the rollers, comically, impeded one of our human team members more so than the robot... a team member grabbed some rollers, forgot to put it away, and stepped in it and flipped backwards...

It would be really, really nice to have some challenging terrain for next year. Unfortunately, the size of the field means that it's hard to design something really difficult to deal with while still leaving a slower way to go around it. Making the field bigger to compensate would be nice, but highly unlikely. Maybe something in the center of the field that requires either going over (necessitating a low center of gravity) or under (requiring that the robot be really short) to get to the other side of the field quickly? And have the scoring area be really high, just to make things even more challenging.

Also, a scoring object that isn't round would be a welcome change.

[NalaTI]

I thought that it would be kinda cool to rearrange the tiles and walls so that the fields were 8' x 16' - it could be done with the current system, just re-arrange the pieces.

That way the alliances could start at opposite ends, and there could be a real terrain difference in the center (raised blocks for instance).

Alan

[billw]

An 8' x 16' is a very clever idea and one that I like very much.

Some teams, however, also compete in VRC and share the same field walls and surface with thier FTC teammates. This would obviously be difficult to do unless both organizations agreed to make the same changes to the field dimensions.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by billw

An 8' x 16' is a very clever idea and one that I like very much.

Some teams, however, also compete in VRC and share the same field walls and surface with their FTC teammates. This would obviously be difficult to do unless both organizations agreed to make the same changes to the field dimensions.

There would be probably be no changes that couldn't be undone for VRC. The changes would be rearrangements of the shared pieces when they are put together, not permanent alterations of those pieces.