Modern Upgrrade

[Al Skierkiewicz]

I had to vote for Stack Attack since that was our first Champs win. However, in terms of rules, I disliked some of the rules. We took our stacker off early in the season although it seemed from a strategy standpoint to be a game winner except the stacks could not be protected and that basically negated any work done by the human player. We could get 8-10 high in practice. Bomb Squad was ridiculously fast that year, about twice as fast as us.
I have stated many times that I believe games in which the human player can make a difference are some of my favorites.
Toroid Terror and Ramp Riot are two of those that I think excelled at human player interactions.

[dag0620]

2003 all the way. One of the easiest to adapt in the reboot, plus newer technology could make the field a lot more interesting, and could add some unique small things to the game.

Plus there's just something about robots speeding up the ramp, ramming into the bins, and see them crashing down that just makes me giddy with excitement.

[Anupam Goli]

Honestly, even though 2004 would be super crowded, seeing 3 robots tackle the various elements would be great to watch. It would be sort of like watching a Triathlon where all 3 events were going on at the same time. A bit crazy and unpleasant for newcomers to watch, but it would be so great to play and watch as an FRC vet. Other than that, 2003 seems pretty ideal as the next best.

[EricH]

If you guys are calling for 2003, there was a game-breaker that year. It wasn't necessarily blocking the top of the ramp... Two teams figured out how to take down the wall without moving. They went head-to-head in one match. Yes, there was a winner. (Yoda, by name...) Yes, I remember which teams they were. Yes, I think I could figure out how to build such a robot under most of the current rules and restrictions...

[Gregor]

Originally Posted by EricH

If you guys are calling for 2003, there was a game-breaker that year. It wasn't necessarily blocking the top of the ramp... Two teams figured out how to take down the wall without moving. They went head-to-head in one match. Yes, there was a winner. (Yoda, by name...) Yes, I remember which teams they were. Yes, I think I could figure out how to build such a robot under most of the current rules and restrictions...

What teams and how did they manage that? Do you have any video?

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Gregor

What teams and how did they manage that? Do you have any video?

I don't think I can find any, but 234 and 980 built the robots. Basic automode was to extend and swing an arm across the ramp. Goodbye boxes. 234's had two pivots; 980's had 1 but telescoped out, then telescoped in after being raised to vertical (then latched stowed). After that, they'd climb the ramp or try to defend a stack.

As I recall, 980 got to the boxes first when they went against each other.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by EricH

I don't think I can find any, but 234 and 980 built the robots. Basic automode was to extend and swing an arm across the ramp. Goodbye boxes. 234's had two pivots; 980's had 1 but telescoped out, then telescoped in after being raised to vertical (then latched stowed). After that, they'd climb the ramp or try to defend a stack.

As I recall, 980 got to the boxes first when they went against each other.

71 also made a similar design.

234 versus 980
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/15501
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/15509
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/15510
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/15511
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/15512

71 for reference
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/16233

[Joe Ross]

Originally Posted by EricH

If you guys are calling for 2003, there was a game-breaker that year.

71, 234, and 980 combined for 1 finalist award and no wins at 9 events (71 at West Michigan). It's very creative, but hardly a game-breaking strategy.

[Chris Hibner]

Originally Posted by Joe Ross

71, 234, and 980 combined for 1 finalist award and no wins at 9 events (71 at West Michigan). It's very creative, but hardly a game-breaking strategy.

I remember one match where we played one of them. We had wings that deployed in order to push a large number of bins. When we played that match we ran our autonomous in low gear. It made it very slow, which was exactly how to beat it. When we turned the corner to head toward the ramp, all of the boxes were still in front of us. We just slowly bulldozed them over to the other side.

With all that being said, it was still a pretty cool idea and was usually very effective.

[JVN]

Originally Posted by Joe Ross

71, 234, and 980 combined for 1 finalist award and no wins at 9 events (71 at West Michigan). It's very creative, but hardly a game-breaking strategy.

Agreed. Several other teams (148 included - way before I was on the team) built similar robots.

-John

[Tetraman]

Ladder Logic please.

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

Nothing will ever make the 2001 or 2002 game better.

But we played the remake for 2001 this year (bridge and cooperate with opponents for common goal), and the 2002 remake in 2009 (goals, balls, and movement is key).

And if you didn't say Pre-2005, I would have said 2005.

[Travis Hoffman]

2003.

Bumpers optional.

Make stacked robots on the platform worth endgame multipliers.

Make 68's robot legal, just for fun.

Get rid of the elimination round points system. Burn it. Nuke it. Kill it with fire.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman

2003.

Bumpers optional.

Make stacked robots on the platform worth endgame multipliers.

Make 68's robot legal, just for fun.

Get rid of the elimination round points system. Burn it. Nuke it. Kill it with fire.

I think we can all appreciate power and hitting things, but this wouldn't make a good FIRST game at all.

[rcmolloy]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

I think we can all appreciate power and hitting things, but this wouldn't make a good FIRST game at all.

I have to agree with Adam on this one guys. I even remember a story that he told me during season about how he was explaining 2011 to one of our sponsors and they were simply puzzled as to why that game challenge was created. If FIRST wants to have success year after year when it comes to games, they need to recognize that the games need to emulate simple tasks but tasks that people can follow play by play. (Real time scoring helped improve that mentality this year and I hope that the same continues to play out)

The yearly challenges don't have to be hard to understand and FIRST nailed that on the head this year given the task was playing basketball.

I would like to see FIRST take one of the more abstract games and make it just as fun and understandable for next year. *cough 2005/2000 *cough

[Ekcrbe]

Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman

2003.
Make 68's robot legal, just for fun.

Sounds good to me!

But we'd have to pull it down from the Graveyard and put it back together.