The Only Constant is Change

[Mr. Pockets]

Originally Posted by OZ_341

I have a completely unfounded feeling that our regional travel choices will somehow be more limiting this year. Whether its by hard rules, encouragement, or financial incentives, they could stretch the donation farther by limiting the shipping of robots.
If you think about donated shipping in terms of miles, then FIRST could service more teams for the same donation amount, my encouraging more teams to compete locally, especially for their second regional.

Personally I'm interested in seeing if any other states end up adopting a system similar to the one used in Michigan in the coming season. I'm not sure if you were referring to a similar idea, but last year almost all of the events were local (local here being within two hours driving). That meant that shipping costs were were more or less the cost of getting a trailer for comps (I'm not totally sure on this fact, someone correct me if I'm wrong).

Edit: Fancy that, thefro526 beat me to the punch.

[OZ_341]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pockets

Personally I'm interested in seeing if any other states end up adopting a system similar to the one used in Michigan in the coming season. I'm not sure if you were referring to a similar idea, but last year almost all of the events were local (local here being within two hours driving). That meant that shipping costs were were more or less the cost of getting a trailer for comps (I'm not totally sure on this fact, someone correct me if I'm wrong).

Edit: Fancy that, thefro526 beat me to the punch.

Yes, areas with large concentrations of teams, like PA, NJ, etc. could do a Michigan style system. Less concentrated areas would have to do something modified. But I have no foundation for my guesses, so I'm going to stop talking now.

[Tetraman]

NY could go with the same Michagan system, so long as they keep the trademark regionals/dates for those regionals.

Cause...you know...FLR is pretty much a staple of FIRST now.

[ttldomination]

What if the score gets affected by a period of time? Back in 07, we got points for having tubes in a row or in a column where the number of tubes in a row, or x, would have your score be 2^x.

In the same manner, what happens if you gain more points as the time progresses? The simplest implementation of this would be king of the hill. Whichever robot is on top is gaining points as time goes on. But this could also be true for game pieces that sit on a platform or robots who sit in a particular section of the field.

[BrendanB]

Originally Posted by ttldomination

What if the score gets affected by a period of time? Back in 07, we got points for having tubes in a row or in a column where the number of tubes in a row, or x, would have your score be 2^x.

In the same manner, what happens if you gain more points as the time progresses? The simplest implementation of this would be king of the hill. Whichever robot is on top is gaining points as time goes on. But this could also be true for game pieces that sit on a platform or robots who sit in a particular section of the field.

Didn't the 2001 game or the 2000 game, whichever had the the 4 robots on one alliance have this same idea of the quicker you completed the task the more points you got?

At least I thought it did, I just watched a couple of videos and didn't read the rules or anything of the kind.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by BrendanB

Didn't the 2001 game or the 2000 game, whichever had the the 4 robots on one alliance have this same idea of the quicker you completed the task the more points you got?

At least I thought it did, I just watched a couple of videos and didn't read the rules or anything of the kind.

Yes, 2001 had that. The sooner you E-stopped, the better.

Only problem is, you really need all the robots on the same alliance. It's safe to say that 2001 was the least-liked game in FRC history.

[BrendanB]

Thanks,

Based on the three videos I saw, it was enough for me i mean, come on no defense or other robots to combat with at the same time.

[Mr. Pockets]

Originally Posted by EricH

Yes, 2001 had that. The sooner you E-stopped, the better.

Only problem is, you really need all the robots on the same alliance. It's safe to say that 2001 was the least-liked game in FRC history.

I can definately see why that wouldn't have been well liked. One of the best parts of the games I've seen (overdrive and lunacy) was the potential for the game to be winable by either team up until the very end (this seemed particularly true in lunacy due to super cells and dumpers). The idea of a team "completing" its task before time is up seems like it might make for pretty short and boring matches. It's one thing that I'd rather didn't change.

[Chris is me]

"The only constant is change" is a hint that probably applies to every season of FIRST.

I honestly think FIRST looks on Chief Delphi and makes a game based on what everyone's summer projects are. Basically, this year's game will have no tactical advantage to a swerve drive. Bold prediction?

[JaneYoung]

It would also be wise to heed the words of warning and not assume anything for the 2010 season - as was so clearly stated.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by JaneYoung

It would also be wise to heed the words of warning and not assume anything for the 2010 season - as was so clearly stated.

The same warning that was given for the 2009 season, in fact.

I think it's safe to assume that 1) there will be a use for the control system and 2) we will be able to get a second set of components should we wish to. I would also guess that the game involves robots.

[Karibou]

I hate to bring back a first page topic, but...

Originally Posted by Mr. Pockets

How about this: what would happen if there were game pieces of all different shapes and/or colors. What if during the game the values of pieces scored fluctuated. Like say...for the first minute squares are worth 2 points circles are worth 5 and after the first minute passed they switched. The only thing is that it would make tallying the score absolute heck so I doubt they'd do that.

That would fit quite well with the speculations made here.
:/

I'm not really sure what to make of the quote. With all of my speculations, I've been trying to figure out how the new PC could fit in with everything, but I haven't come up with anything that fits together yet.

[NickE]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pockets

How about this: what would happen if there were game pieces of all different shapes and/or colors. What if during the game the values of pieces scored fluctuated. Like say...for the first minute squares are worth 2 points circles are worth 5 and after the first minute passed they switched. The only thing is that it would make tallying the score absolute heck so I doubt they'd do that.

How hectic scoring would be really depends on how accurate real-time scoring can be for the given game.

For example, playing overdrive (where the real-time scoring was almost always the final score) with changing ball values would be alot easier to score than lunacy (real time scoring usually off) with changing ball values.

Originally Posted by Karibou

With all of my speculations, I've been trying to figure out how the new PC could fit in with everything, but I haven't come up with anything that fits together yet.

With the proper software, some USB ports and an Ethernet port, it could be a replacement driver station.

[Mr. Pockets]

Originally Posted by "NickE

With the proper software, some USB ports and an Ethernet port, it could be a replacement driver station.

(Shrug) For all we know it might be required to have that as your driver station.

By the way, there was once a time (a.k.a. before I visited CD) when I would never have imagined blog posts like these to have cryptic secrets.

[ATannahill]

I really shouldn't be feeding this but.......the only thing for certain is uncertainty