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

[The_ShamWOW88]

Maybe instead of 4 v 4, keep the same amount of bots but 3 alliances of 2 teams....add that mysterious Green alliance everyone keeps talking about....

[Steven Donow]

Originally Posted by notmattlythgoe

I'm more talking about match play. These fields get crowded with 6 robots playing on them, add in another 2 robots and you end up with clusters or robots not able to move because there isn't enough room. Not much fun to watch or compete in.

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

[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....

[Kellen Hill]

Originally Posted by notmattlythgoe

I'm more talking about match play. These fields get crowded with 6 robots playing on them, add in another 2 robots and you end up with clusters or robots not able to move because there isn't enough room. Not much fun to watch or compete in.

Ah, but what if you make the robots smaller as well!

[notmattlythgoe]

Originally Posted by Kellen Hill

Ah, but what if you make the robots smaller as well!

Originally Posted by notmattlythgoe

I'm trying to imagine the logistic of fitting 8 robots onto one field without changing the size limitations on the robots again. Especially if we see some field obstacles added to the field again. That would be one crowded field.

[Blackphantom91]

I think if they went with the motor constraints they had before it would be much harder in general. Size is a good point though.

[Justin Montois]

We talk each year when game hints come out about how the hint could mean big changes to field shape, alliances ETC. I think this is confirmation that something along those lines is coming so there's definitely cause for excitement!

Expanded championship, expanded alliance size? More teams, more matches, more teams in each match?

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by MechEng83

4v4 would work too, w/ drivers stations having to fit in the "small" station zones like they did for 2012. This has the added benefit of allowing matches to extend a little in length while not increasing the tournament length -- or allow teams to get in 12 (or more?) actual matches at larger regionals.

Core issue with that is that it becomes a nightmare for small events.

Basically, your pit time is ((Event_Teams/Match_Teams ) - Queued_Matches) * Cycle_Time.

Queued_Matches is typically 2. Cycle_Time is usually somewhere around 8.

((40/6)-2) * 8 ~= 32
((32/6)-2) * 8 ~= 24

((40/8)-2) * 8 ~= 24
((32/8)-2) * 8 ~= 16


Idk, I would like a little more time to fix my bot than 16 minutes.

[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.

[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.