anyone have any ideas about next years game?

[apalrd]

@BJC: 2004 was not Stack Attack (that was tim and jim's least favorite year and Mom's only year - 2003), it was FIRST Frenzy, but it was a ball game. 2003 was a non-ball game). Also, @ your last comment, we have OCCRA for that. With only like 5 pages of rules total, student-built requirements, and no bumpers (full contact!).

I like the idea of modifying the alliances a little bit. Anyone remember how 2001 was a 4v0 game where everyone worked together, against no-one (they did everything based on time). I can't see them changing any time soon based on the field layout, except maybe moving 4v4 or something (and removing the human players at the ends).

I really really want a non-ball game. I hate ball games, because (with the exception of 2008) the ball game robots look less exciting then those that don't handle balls.
Look at 33's past robots.
2000 was short enough to go under the goal, yet extended with a billion-segment (actually, it was no more than 5 segments) elevator, to score and hang.
2001. Shortest 33 robot that still exists (nothing past 2000 is remembered by most). It hooked to two goals with its double-headed design, and dragged fallen robots off the ramp with some hooks that could be lowered on the front. Back in this time there was no autonomous mode, no bumpers, no CIM motors, and a PBASIC processor with 63 bytes of variable space, yet it still made it to finals on Einstein without problems.
2002. Large robot that collected soccer balls, first 33 bot to have honeycomb, and had an articulated chassis to lift the goal off the ground after it was latched (it jacked up the rear wheels to lift instead of moving the hitch). This robot had sorta-bumpers as part of the goal hitch, but they were part of the robot, unlike now.
2003 has a giant arm to stack boxes, and when the arm is down forward it can do "death spirals" where all of the wheels are off the ground but the front pair. From these days came the "happy feet" to climb a wire mesh ramp, PBASIC autonomous mode, PIC Co-Processor to count encoder clicks and feed them via DAC into an ADC on the PBASCIC controller, and no bumpers.
2004 bot. It was known as a refrigerator, because it was a giant box on wheels. The least exciting robot we have.
2005: They stacked semi-large heavy tetras on odd-shaped goals, using crazy manipulator arms that moved with many joints to pickup and place tetras. Ours has an arm with two joints and a pneumatic-actuated three-fingered hand (the middle finger is separate from the other two; great for victory motions). This robot has bumpers on the front and rear, although they are not the pool-noodle type we have now.
2006: Rolling boxes with turreted (or non-turreted) shooters, a storage mechanism, and a rule that prevents extension above 60" (the starting height). Like 2004, you see rolling boxes, although these actually do something cool. Ours had a rotary ball sorter.
2007: Tubes on a rack. Like 2005, we see manipulators of many sorts, with roller claws, gripper claws, and other claw designs on multi-jointed arms, elevators, and other crazy contraptions. It looks cool. Ours has a sweet arm with three joints (a shoulder and elbow on the main axis, and a wrist rotation on the end), and a pneumatic claw. Unlike this and last year, there are no limits on where you can touch opponents robots, and bumpers are not required.
2008 was similar. Manipulator arms for really big game pieces. We had an elevator where the top roller on the ball fell back to go under the overpass. It looks cool and drives fast.
Then we come to 2009. This is my least-favorite game. Many robots that can't extend out of their starting box driving around and shooting moon rocks into trailers. There was some excitement, but not much. Many robots closely followed a few designs, and the robots don't demo quite as well as we want, especially with slick wheels (other than that they are pretty cool to demo though).
2010: Lots of short robots with kickers. Some have hanging mechanisms, some are better than others. Not much special in most, but some can hang or manipulate balls well and excell.


2011: I hope we have another year with robots that get bigger than they start. Something like 2007 or 2005 would be ideal for me, but something that makes teams think outside the box and where the GDC does not decide what people should/will/must build to manipulate the game pieces, as the large number of rules this year required a ball manipulator basically be a kicker of sort. Maybe the scoring should be simple like this year, but any bonuses should be worth more than 2 points. If we want to build a giant 5-jointed arm to pickup a soccer ball via 6-fingered servo-actuated hand and to gracefully pickup a ball or build a catapult to whip the balls across the field (with limits on ball speed to prevent damage, of course) why can't we?


I've been thinking, why doesn't the GDC combine elements from previous games into a "best of the best" game? Giant moving goals (2002) + giant game pieces (2005-2007-ish) + big bonuses (2007, 2004) + terrain (2001,2003,2004,2010) would be ultimate. Except designing a robot to lift really heavy goals with large PVC rings over teeter-totters or over bumps would be a pain to design and build, so you they could do something like "score large PVC rings on your alliances moving rack to get points, then move it to a platform to get more points, then elevate yourself off of it for even more points, plus a bonus if you're elevated on it while it is on the platform." so you don't have to do it all. You could have robots that specialize in doing one thing well, like scoring on the rack or moving the rack to the platform. You could have defensive robots that move the rack somewhere else to make it harder to score, like moving the rack off the platform or scoring negating rings. What could rookie teams do with kitbots? Probably nothing with a kitbot by itself, but building a single-jointed manipulator arm would be fairly easy and could do a decent amount, scoring on low levels of the rack, plus they could make it strong enough to lift the robot off the goal as well. What could more experienced teams with better manufacturing capabilities do? multi-jointed arms to play game pieces higher up and large hitches on the back to carry racks and lift themselves. How could you make it even better? multi-shaped game pieces (like squares = 4 points, triangles = 3 points, circles = negative 3 points, goal on platform = 10 points, robot hanging off goal = 5 points. The platform could be something to fight for, having room for only two robots and two towers, so other robots have to hang off the side if they want to join, or something like that. @DaveLavery: No vision. The cRio has a hard time with vision, but combined with the rest of the robot systems, it is almost impossible.


As soon as we get a hint, whether from Dave via extra punctuation translated as Morse code or an actual hint, I know we will say it's a water game. And it won't be. But, until the kickoff, we will have no idea. That isn't to say we can't think about what we would like the game to be.

[NyCityKId]

whats OCCRA? and where state is it in?

[Karibou]

Originally Posted by NyCityKId

whats OCCRA? and where state is it in?

Oakland County Competitive Robotics Association. It's a MI organization, but I know that there are probably similar ones out there in other states.

http://www.oakland.k12.mi.us/Default.aspx?tabid=535

[ComputerWhizIA]

Originally Posted by NyCityKId

whats OCCRA? and where state is it in?

OCCRA stands for Oakland County Competitive Robotics Association (thus only teams from Oakland Country, MI are involved in it) and it is a robotics competition during the fall months. OCCRA is similar to FIRST since both competitions supply teams with a kit of parts and have a similar schedule (6 weeks of build and then a month of competitions). The biggest difference is that students have to design, build, code, and test their robot and they cannot use advance machining techniques (such as welding or milling) to build parts.

[NyCityKId]

Originally Posted by Karibou

Oakland County Competitive Robotics Association. It's a MI organization, but I know that there are probably similar ones out there in other states.

http://www.oakland.k12.mi.us/Default.aspx?tabid=535

Oh Ok i see well maybe iwe can get something set up in new york. and other states also

[BJC]

Originally Posted by ComputerWhizIA

OCCRA stands for Oakland County Competitive Robotics Association (thus only teams from Oakland Country, MI are involved in it) and it is a robotics competition during the fall months. OCCRA is similar to FIRST since both competitions supply teams with a kit of parts and have a similar schedule (6 weeks of build and then a month of competitions). The biggest difference is that students have to design, build, code, and test their robot and they cannot use advance machining techniques (such as welding or milling) to build parts.

Although OCCRA is all good and well, I would really love to have a problem/hint by the GDC that has to do with the next years game, which teams would attempt to solve in the off season. For example, if it was this year, perhaps building a drivetrain that could go over elevated terrain would be hinted at. Then the GDC could have made the rest of the game more difficult, because lets face it most of us spent at least the first 2 weeks of build season on a drivetrain that could go over the bump . This ideas really growing on me, because I know the GDC would always throw curveballs. For example, if they had done it this year instead of just giving us the bump and telling us to go over it in the off season, they would give us a similar yet different challenge such as going up stairs or something of that sort. Besides most areas don't have opportunities like OCCRA.

[davidthefat]

I want to play football with robots... 7 on 7 may be more appropriate

[HazzardFuzzBomb]

Originally Posted by sircedric4

With the Classmate and camera's finally being standard equipment for everyone, I think they should make a game where the bonus round requires the camera and driving from the camera.

Like submarine ROV's and robots in space sometimes the only feedback you have is what the camera is telling you. I would like to see a bonus round where they drop a curtain in front of each driver station, and then you have to manipulate a game piece or do something else difficult based only on your video feed.

As an alternative, they could have some sort of enclosure in the middle of the field where some game pieces are and the only way you can play with them is to have a camera on the end of your manipulator.

I would suspect this sort of game design feature would be coming soon.

I would love the play by only camera function. I'm a fan of the ball games, and they seem to entice the crowd more especially, Though this system of scoring is simple, i was talking to people who were not part of FIRST and were at the competition and were lost on what was going on like
"scoring into your own side"
"how do the points work"

Maybe game of dodge ball or hockey would be amazing, a lot of teams seem to want to take a nice whack at others bots (and doing not very much damage for 's sake) and get rewarded for it.

By the way, this is my first time in this type of discussion and have learned one word to make ten posts follow it
"water game!!!"

[NyCityKId]

WATER GAMES FTW!!! O_O

[angelawence11]

haha... water game thatd be fun. im thinking glow in the dark (assuming safety would allow it. haha jk.).
something football like would definitely be an interesting challenge. i feel as if lunacy was a mix of basketball and ice hockey, so i think those two are out. breakaways obviously similar to soccer... maybe we could work something baseball-like in
No matter what it is, its gonna be great and I can't wait to see the diversity of next years robots! GO TEAMS!

[NyCityKId]

Originally Posted by angelawence11

haha... water game thatd be fun. im thinking glow in the dark (assuming safety would allow it. haha jk.).
something football like would definitely be an interesting challenge. i feel as if lunacy was a mix of basketball and ice hockey, so i think those two are out. breakaways obviously similar to soccer... maybe we could work something baseball-like in
No matter what it is, its gonna be great and I can't wait to see the diversity of next years robots! GO TEAMS!

Baseball would be interesting, but they might stay away from that since this year's FTC had a little to do with baseball. (well they made it seem that way from the Demo Vid)

I think the might do something non-sports based since they've sort of gone through all of the practical sport already... well at least the sports I can think of.

[DarkFlame145]

I know one thing for sure............. it will NOT be a water game

[spacewolfx]

How can you be sure it won't be a water game?

I, for one, think that a water game is very feasible (sorry if i did not spell that right). It would prove to be a tough challenge and very interesting to play in.

[NyCityKId]

Originally Posted by spacewolfx

How can you be sure it won't be a water game?

I, for one, think that a water game is very feasible (sorry if i did not spell that right). It would prove to be a tough challenge and very interesting to play in.

water games might be interesting for older teams but rookie teams and less experienced teams might have trouble waterproofing. not to mention the safety issues that might come up with a water field.

[Karibou]

Originally Posted by spacewolfx

How can you be sure it won't be a water game?

I, for one, think that a water game is very feasible (sorry if i did not spell that right). It would prove to be a tough challenge and very interesting to play in.

This idea gets beaten to death every year. The main reasons...
-Cost (pump the water in, make some sort of tank to contain the water, etc)
-Venue availability (no high school gym floor - at the very least - can take hundreds of pounds of water sitting on it for three days straight, and pools aren't exactly spectator-friendly)
-While teams would KNOW how crucial it would be to protect their electronics, there is SUCH a huge chance that something will spark and kill everything.
-Spectator viewing pleasure (or lack thereof)