[FRC Blog] - NASA Grants and Something New for 2015

[Rosiebotboss]

Originally Posted by nfhammes

....Robot size: I don't see this changing too drastically either.

Standard door sizes dictate max robot size. I highly doubt FIRST would allow bigger robots. I wouldn't put it past the GDC to make robots smaller. 2014 was 110", 2015 could be 106" or 100". Or go back to the 28x38x60.

[Nate Laverdure]

Hey, cool your jets. It's exciting to speculate about a 5-sided field paved in a 3-inch layer of jello, but here's something else to consider: when we make major changes to the size, layout, and surfaces of the playing field, we push our community away from its objectives. A field that changes shape every year identifies FRC clearly as a game, not a sport. Sports have the power to change culture in a way that games do not.

(Also, the AndyMark field was probably developed independent of any knowledge of the 2015 game.)

[Brandon Ha]

Maybe, we will see the recognition by the GDC that all games from here on out will have rules in place to protect the offensive robots and punish the defensive game for aggressive defense...
Large object -> Aggressive defense -> AntiPenalty.

I.E. Read Spanking the Children from Jim Zondag

[MARS_James]

After much consideration I have made an opinion on the things listed by Frank:

Number of teams on an alliance:
I think a 4v4 would be a cluster unless the ideas listed about only 3 robots in play at a time were to be initiated. My only problem with that is logistically making it so all 4 robots have an impact.

Number of alliances in a match:

I am against 3 alliances for one very big reason:
I assume ranking would no longer be win loss but more likely a 1st 2nd 3rd system. Lets say we are at a regional and the last match of the day contains one member on each alliance who currently have all 1st places, 2 of these teams want to be on an alliance together for eliminations so they agree to send their defensive bots to disrupt the other alliance effectively turning it from a 1v1v1 to a 2v1, perfectly legal but very unfair to the final alliance. Now if we played a game were the alliances can't interact that would solve that but then strategy for opponents is a non-entity, as would upsets.


Match length:
I don't want matches to be to much longer as I like more matches which goes against that idea. Now shorter matches I like, if Aerial Assist would have been 2:15 instead of 2:30 at most events you would have been able to squeeze in an extra match for every team.


Bumper rules:
I think that these change so much that it doesn't really matter BUT I could see FIRST taking away sail cloth bumpers. Honestly with some of the headaches I have seen over the years I am surprised FIRST doesn't find a supplier to give us a voucher for the exact cloth FIRST wants us to use.


Field surfaces:
Now I find it interesting he made this plural not singular. I am totally against 2009 as a game BUT I do think a game where it is mostly carpet with a few areas not could be fun.


Robot size:
I am so used to our new robot size I hope they don't change it. I would however love to see the weight classes of 2007 brought back. The shorter you start the heavier you are allowed to be was a fun trade off.

[Libby K]

Originally Posted by Steven Donow

Yeah. Keeping logistics in mind, I assume this means something like different playing surface or bumper rules or robot size or something.

Oh god. No. Please no. Not again.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Libby K

Oh god. No. Please no. Not again.

I didn't realize Maize Craze scarred baby Libby so horribly.

[The_ShamWOW88]

Field changes could mean that we may see something sort of field element we have to climb over or drive over, etc. Something like 2003 with the ramp, 2004 with the steps, 2012 with the balancing ramps....

[Jay O'Donnell]

Does anyone else find it odd that this was posted seemingly out of the blue with no real significance to it? We didn't really learn anything and this sort of came out of nowhere. I'm wondering why they would even say this. Hopefully when January 3rd hits we'll understand!

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by MARS_James

Number of teams on an alliance:
I think a 4v4 would be a cluster unless the ideas listed about only 3 robots in play at a time were to be initiated. My only problem with that is logistically making it so all 4 robots have an impact.

Imagine having 4 big pads, one in each corner, with an opening that essentially only lets one robot into the pad at a time. One pad from each alliance has to be depressed at all times, and if a pad is depressed more than 15 consecutive seconds the other team is awarded points. Have weight sensors on the pads tied to a countdown clock the drivers can see. Add in safety zones so you can't trap a robot on a pad or park your robot on an opponents pad... You can have 4 robots on the field, but only 3 are active at a time and which three that is changes periodically. If this was combined with an assist-oriented game like we had this year, everyone could still participate in assists, given sufficient planning and coordination.

[MARS_James]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

Imagine having 4 big pads, one in each corner, with an opening that essentially only lets one robot into the pad at a time. One pad from each alliance has to be depressed at all times, and if a pad is depressed more than 15 consecutive seconds the other team is awarded points. Have weight sensors on the pads tied to a countdown clock the drivers can see. Add in safety zones so you can't trap a robot on a pad or park your robot on an opponents pad... You can have 4 robots on the field, but only 3 are active at a time and which three that is changes periodically. If this was combined with an assist-oriented game like we had this year, everyone could still participate in assists, given sufficient planning and coordination.

I like the idea in theory, but you have to have only 2 robots on the field at some points since you need 1 pad compressed at all times, a robot breaking down completely destroys your alliance, and will lose you the match. If you have a sub-par bot on the alliance you just have them constantly running from pad A to pad B to relieve the heavy hitters.

Like I said it will take a lot of thought to make it work

[Anthony Galea]

Originally Posted by Jay O'Donnell

Does anyone else find it odd that this was posted seemingly out of the blue with no real significance to it? We didn't really learn anything and this sort of came out of nowhere. I'm wondering why they would even say this. Hopefully when January 3rd hits we'll understand!

The GDC is just bored, with being finished with the game, so they want some entertainment of reading this thread.

[The_ShamWOW88]

Originally Posted by 3175student17

The GDC is just bored, with being finished with the game, so they want some entertainment of reading this thread.

Yeah, now they get to sit back, eat their popcorn and watch the rumors run rampant....

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by The_ShamWOW88

Yeah, now they get to sit back, eat their popcorn and watch the rumors run rampant....

Unlike the LRI, Head Ref, and FTA, the GDC actually has time to eat popcorn!

[FrankJ]

Maybe the game will be checkers or chess. We have not had an air game in a while.

[Michael Hill]

It's also possible that we replay an old game with modified rules. For example, the 2004 game could be played but with different restrictions requiring completely different robot designs than we're used before.