2015 HINT DISCUSSION

[weaversam8]

Another important point is that we are moving to a new control system this year. Perhaps this could spell changes in the underlying FMS architecture, including additional robots through some wifi trickery. The RoboRIO is only 330 grams, meaning it could potentially be easily lifted by propellers.

[Cash4587]

I have also found the footage location for the 1997 game and "1999" game used in the hint video. These clips both came from Andy Baker's YouTube (easy to get permission to use) and were a part of the same video. One important thing to note: The footage used for the 1999 segment in the hint video came from a clip of Andy Baker's 1997 video that was BEFORE the clip used for the 1997 video segment in the hint video. This is a quite confusing statement but please reference the pictures for a clearer understanding.

I really do think this has some significance, and despite what others say there is no way that people of FIRST HQ did this on accident. However, this is only my opinion and nobody has any real way of knowing who is right or wrong until Jan. 3. It is fun to analyze things like this though.

[Thad House]

97 and 99 being mixed up has to be big. Just like Cash said, there is no way that was an accident. Especially if the clips both came from the same video.

[Twins Inc.]

Originally Posted by Thad House

97 and 99 being mixed up has to be big. Just like Cash said, there is no way that was an accident. Especially if the clips both came from the same video.

Earlier, I forgot who it was, someone mentioned that almost never before did the hint talk about the actual game, but actually the name of the competition.

So what does the double of 1997 and lack of 1999 footage relate to the game?

I just though of a name!

CYCLE SWITCH

ha HA! I have no idea what it means though.

[Hallry]

Originally Posted by Thad House

97 and 99 being mixed up has to be big. Just like Cash said, there is no way that was an accident..

Or...just thinking outside the box here, it could simply be a complete accident.

[Cash4587]

Originally Posted by Hallry

Or...just thinking outside the box here, it could simply be a complete accident.

I still don't understand how it could be a complete accident if the footage for both 1997 and 1999 segment in the hint video came from the same 1997 video on YouTube.. Also, frank did comment on the blog with "Whoops." with no further explanation meaning it was most likely a sarcastic comment.

[Nathan(of4564)]

Originally Posted by Cash4587

The footage from 1993 was NOT reused for 1996. I found both videos where each clip has come from and it is definitely not a reuse of 1993 footage.

Whoops! Thanks man, I didn't catch that when I posted it the first time. I guess my fingers autopiloted or something. But there was footage reused. I just got the years wrong. '97 and '99. Sorry about the confusion!

[jvriezen]

Ok, here's a radical 'change' idea-- no more defense. There are two ways I can see this happening: 6v0 or two simultaneous 3v0 on a segregated field (i.e barrier midfield that can't be crossed.) Teams cooperate to score as much as possible, and the same ranking points are awarded to all six teams. (or each of the three teams on an alliance if it is 2 x 3v0.)

Such a big change would have to be justified, but I see several shortcomings that many in the FRC community complain about being solved by this.

1) Bumpers. No need to change bumper colors (even in 2x3v0 field marking can indicate alliance colors). This means teams can build one set of bumpers, permanently attach them (even if it takes two hours to do so) and never take them off. Inspection process would change to weigh with bumpers (maybe a higher max weight) and perimeter check would include bumpers. This speeds up inspection, no dragging bumper covers. or human error in changing bumpers and not fully attaching them resulting in lost or half attached bumpers on the field.

2) Refs - No pinning calls, no high speed ramming calls, and maybe no perimeter incursion calls. Refs could be limited to things like possession limits and such. Fewer subjective calls and less work for them to do.

3) Better modeling of 'real world' robotics technology. Lots of recent robotics R&D are for cooperating bots (swarms, amazon inventory picking, etc.) and the only real world applications for competing robots is in military and police contexts, which are not in keeping with solving the worlds problems.

4) Less bot breakage -- Less robustly built robots won't break down as much, and there will be fewer box bots on the field due to broken appendages.

5) More scoring. Defense is usually just blocking bots movement, and that's not very public spectator friendly compared to scoring. The crowd cheers when a score happens, but not so much when a great defensive move happens.

6) Highlights cooperation -- FIRST has tried various ways to put the cooperation part of coopertition onto the field and with the exception of 2014, most have had at best mixed results in terms of acceptance.

7) Playoff rounds -- Alliances would be 6 teams or more likely 7 or 8 with six playing) for the 6v0 model or 3-4 teams for the 2 x 3v0 model. Playoffs can be multiple rounds with two or three plays per round, and alliance's best round (or sum of rounds) determines subset of teams that advance to next round. Final round is two alliances.

8) Board games (and to a lesser extent video games) have an increasing number of cooperative gaming models.

Downsides:

1) People like head to head offense+defense competition. With the 2 x 3v0 model, you would still get head to head, just no defense.

2) Less opportunity for epic 'fix it' in limited time and other teams helping you fix it scenarios. But things will still break and need fixing with incidental collisions and field wall/element collisions.

Even if this isn't the 2015 game, I think the 2 x 3v0 model is well worth considering for the future.

[BlahMaster123]

'Game is coming'...

"Game of Drones".
This is what the game will be called.

This HAS to be it.

[Ginger Power]

Whoops looked at the wrong page!

[BenGuy]

There's probably going to be some new HUGE change this year, I highly doubt a water game, a lot of people don't have access to pools and there's not enough stands. However, that's the only huge change I can see coming?

[Ekcrbe]

Originally Posted by BenGuy

There's probably going to be some new HUGE change this year, I highly doubt a water game, a lot of people don't have access to pools and there's not enough stands. However, that's the only huge change I can see coming?

Well, this begs the question: Would you consider all the changes in the hint video "huge"? I wouldn't expect this change to be any bigger than those. Things change every year, it's just a matter of which ones our perception tells us are the most major.

[Michael Hill]

Originally Posted by Ekcrbe

Well, this begs the question: Would you consider all the changes in the hint video "huge"? I wouldn't expect this change to be any bigger than those. Things change every year, it's just a matter of which ones our perception tells us are the most major.

I'm not so sure. When has the hint been focused on change happening? They (FIRST) seems to be very clear that SOMETHING we have all grown used to is changing.

[Ekcrbe]

Originally Posted by Michael Hill

I'm not so sure. When has the hint been focused on change happening? They (FIRST) seems to be very clear that SOMETHING we have all grown used to is changing.

Well, never that I know of, but when has the hint ever been similar to a previous year's? They're always pretty different. If they gave this hint before the release of Ultimate Ascent and then we found out that the robot sizing rules were changing, I would have been pretty well satisfied. I think that would have been enough because it was such a mainstay over the previous several years, but it didn't fundamentally change the way we approached that game or Aerial Assist. I think this year will see something of that magnitude again--not really earth-shattering, but something that hasn't changed in a while.

[AndyBare]

So I checked out page 2 of the 2014 manual that was flipped to in the game hint. At the bottom of the manual is a "Arial Assist is played by two competing alliances" line as is underlined in red in the attachment 'manual.png.' Note that this is page 2/3 of the Game summary. There are 2 alliances in past years, but this year we are recycling. We have 2/3 but let's make it 3/3 by "Going green." Notice how the recycling symbol in the game hint video on the bin is white, also a triangle of course. How about adding a third alliance that is White? This would triangulate the entire way that districts, regionals, worlds, etc. are run... and well... finish off the colors of the first logo.