What if...

[mrnoble]

Frank's post could be referring to a major change that we have never seen before: what if we will be REPLAYING Aerial Assist? It was a game with potential to be a sport, if only the bugs had a chance to get worked out. There were numerous threads last spring commenting on how FIRST has been moving in the direction of sport (as opposed to "game") for a while, and that sports generally work out their kinks over years and decades of high-level play. What if there were some rules changes, and a few new twists to make it impossible to re-use last year's bot and strategy, but the game remained essentially intact? Now THAT would be unprecedented.

[Jacob Bendicksen]

So reuse the fields, reuse the majority of rules, yet somehow prevent the use of old strategies? I'm intrigued, but I'm not sure if it's possible. I'd love to be wrong, though.

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by Jacob Bendicksen

So reuse the fields, reuse the majority of rules, yet somehow prevent the use of old strategies? I'm intrigued, but I'm not sure if it's possible. I'd love to be wrong, though.

Reuse fields: For the most part, they currently reuse fields, with the addition of game-specific field pieces.

Reuse majority of rules: The Robot Rules are, for the most part, reused from one year to the next. There might be a couple game-specific rules, and rules are updated as needed, but it's very recognizable as the same rules. Even in the game rules, you'll see very similar/identical rules reoccurring over the years. Pinning, for example, or grappling with field elements, or hitting someone inside their frame perimeter.

Prevent the reuse of strategy: That's what a whole new game is for!



Anyways, I could see them reuse old games with small tweaks. I heard that their "backup game" for Rebound Rumble was basically Aim High. The point of doing a repeat would be to make sure that the year's being repeated have enough differences (control system, allowed motors, etc) to make it a truly new engineering challenge. Imagine playing a game from the mid 90's now - the control systems are much, much more advanced, we have orders of magnitude more motors available, COTS gearboxes that weren't even in people's dream's back then... I think you would see the robots and the games play out very differently!

[Link07]

Originally Posted by mrnoble

Frank's post could be referring to a major change that we have never seen before: what if we will be REPLAYING Aerial Assist? It was a game with potential to be a sport, if only the bugs had a chance to get worked out. There were numerous threads last spring commenting on how FIRST has been moving in the direction of sport (as opposed to "game") for a while, and that sports generally work out their kinks over years and decades of high-level play. What if there were some rules changes, and a few new twists to make it impossible to re-use last year's bot and strategy, but the game remained essentially intact? Now THAT would be unprecedented.

No

[Mitchell1714]

More than 1 ball in teleoperated, add the secret hanging endgame...

Edit: Since the goals are colored, we need neutral colored balls as well.

[Mk.32]

What if....


.... we get a water game.

[DonRotolo]

Originally Posted by Mk.32

What if....


.... we get a water game.

Doubtful.

But a replay of an older game with some changes, or some kind of mashup of older games (shoot the tetra into the high goal...) is absolutely possible.

[pastelpony]

Originally Posted by DonRotolo

Doubtful.

But a replay of an older game with some changes, or some kind of mashup of older games (shoot the tetra into the high goal...) is absolutely possible.

ultimate ascent but with only one game piece played in the fashion of aerial assist

[tindleroot]

Back in 2006 there was a rumor going around that the game would be "Triple Replay", a near-identical version of the 2005 game "Triple Play". Sounds like you think this year could be something like that.

[BJC]

FIRST, as you all know, is designed to inspire students to enter stem careers. The challenge of designing a unique robot is a very important part of this inspiring. Without the uniqueness year to year, the challenge quickly no longer becomes challenging (repetition and all that.) Removing the uniqueness removes creativity which removes inspiration. I know I certainly wouldn't have fallen for the program quite the same way if my team was only improving on the previous year's robot during my time as a student.

Basically, I hope FIRST never reuses a game 1 for 1. If it became a trend I think it would subtract a lot from what the program has to offer.

Cheers, Bryan

[mrnoble]

I'm not thinking one-for-one. I just wouldn't be surprised by an improved version of a game. And I can think of numerous ways they could redo AA without teams being able to reuse last year's robot design:

-add the end game
-smaller or larger balls
-shoot non-ball objects (spun inner tubes?)
-play on a field with 1/20 rise/run slope to the center of the field
-change frame perimeter

et cetera.

I like the mashup idea, or a replay of a game >4 years old, so current students wouldn't have any experience.

[thatgirlinred]

While I certainly agree that this would be an unprecedented move for FIRST, it would also be likely to put rookie teams at a significant disadvantage, as they would be faced with an entirely new problem to solve whereas more established teams would only have to tweak certain ideas, and have an existing knowledge of which methods don't work.

[RonnieS]

If they did so happen to play AA again...I think some of the districts who own their own fields would be quite upset seeing how most of the game specific field pieces are scrapped or sent back to the owner(truss).

[EricH]

Originally Posted by thatgirlinred

While I certainly agree that this would be an unprecedented move for FIRST, it would also be likely to put rookie teams at a significant disadvantage, as they would be faced with an entirely new problem to solve whereas more established teams would only have to tweak certain ideas, and have an existing knowledge of which methods don't work.

That's the case every year. Witness the number of teams this year looking at 2008. 2012 had teams reaching for their 2006 and 2009 designs. 2011 sent 'em to 2007. 2010 and 2013 were anomalies in that it was difficult to draw a parallel--but 2010 had some teams going for their catapult from '08, and others going from scratch, while 2013 had teams adapting 2006 and 2009 and 2012 ideas to frisbees.

And just to keep going...
2009->2006
2008->2004 (the last time previously there had been a large ball on the field)
2007->2005 to some extent, also 1997
2006 was actually pretty new. That was the first time there had been significant launch velocities allowed.
2005->1997
2004->2000, 2001, 2002
2003->no real comparisons here.

I think y'all get the picture. It's almost always possible to go back to a previous game and pick up SOMETHING that can be adapted. This is an advantage that all the veteran teams that were around in that year share, and the rest of the veterans who know something about that year have a slightly smaller advantage because they know where to borrow ideas from. A rookie team who sees the discussion may have an idea what to look at... but the "how did they do that?" is still a huge problem.

[asid61]

Originally Posted by pastelpony

ultimate ascent but with only one game piece played in the fashion of aerial assist

That would be super cool. If you made the pyramids with 2 levels in place of 3, then it could be possible to shoot a 24" ball through it (or at aleast bass through it without getting stuck).

OC, keep in mind they design the games I think 3 years in advance. Plus, reusing a game would be way too "cheap" for the victors of this year. They could just reuse their old bots (1114 would be doing it for the 3rd time). I highly doubt they will be reusing this game for a long time, if at all.

I loved this game though. Teamwork was an aspect I liked quite a bit.