2004 Game

[JP_1163]

A few ideas from a novice FIRST'er (2 years)
1. The autonomous mode will stay and may increase as the game/years goes on. This forces programmers and builder/designers to work together (team building).

2. If the 2x2 format stays then the idea could be that each team member must do a particular job in autonomous mode before the "game" can begin. This could include moving, stacking, grasping, climbing, etc. Unless and until both teams completed the initial "task" the alliance is moot ( I can hear the screaming now).

3. Provide multiple problems within a game (on one side of the field) for 30-60 seconds (more autonomous mode) and then allow some sort of inter-alliance competition for the last 60-90 seconds (human play)

Just my thoughts. No offense intended or implied to any other poster or team.

[DougHogg]

I would like to see the qualifying points be the difference in scores between the winner and the loser. If you win 50 to 40, you get 10 points. If you win 20 to 10, you get 10 points.

The idea would be to encourage defense as well as offence, and do a way with any reason for opponents to make agreements.

True, that would give the loser a negative score but if that was a problem, each team could start out with 10000.

In the elimination rounds, I would definitely prefer going back to best 2 out of 3, although the above scoring system would help to make the second match more interesting.

True, experienced teams would then be obliged to get massive scores and new teams would have a rough time. However I prefer seeing the true relative strengths of the opponents as opposed to giving points to the other team. We can help equalize things for newer teams by giving them some better drive system components with different gearing choices, etc. This year's drill motor mounts and gear boxes were a step in that direction.

Hopefully FIRST will come up with a game with 3 or 4 of viable ways of getting points, so that the winning strategy isn't obvious. For example, I think this year's game would have been improved if it was harder to knock down the stacks created by robots. Maybe there could have been alcoves that robots could put their stacks in, but not human players.

[Sachiel7]

Well, I have a few thoughts...
If the game was 3 vs 3...and I'd like to play a 3v3 game , then it's time for First to enlarge the field. I think one issue this year was that the field turned out to be smaller than expected w/ the ramp in place (I know the field is about the same size as last year).
If we were going to do 3v3, then that would result in an IFI control system update, because more operating channels would be needed.
I do like the idea of disabling bots for a short amount of time during the game, but it probably would have to be limited to a certain amount of times for each alliance, and have a delay between when you could use them, so the game wasn't just bots sitting there the whole time.
I doubt the bins are here to stay guys, sorry.
The main reason they were used was for their stacking capability, and I highly doubt next year's game will involve stacking again, after seeing what happened this year.
I also think it might be a cool idea for first to scrap the QP score method, and just make your total score the QP. This would intensify the game play, and would make it easier for teams who are playing to know who's going to win, and about how many QP's they'll get. It's just too tricky to balance out a good score that easily during a match.
I think that if the game was fast-paced, where the score could easily shift from one alliance to the next, and the total score was your QP's (for both alliances) then the game would always be very interesting to watch, and play.

[Etbitmydog]

It's not hard or expensive to build a robot that travels up stairs. With the tri-star design all you need is 12 small tires, roller chain, and some sprockets.

It's A LOT harder than it looks to do what you're saying. Many forget, but FIRST did try a stair type object in 99. It was the puck. Just the stair moved which made the game even cooler!

Our team was the only team that year, to my knowledge from all the 300+- teams I saw at nationals that actually pulled off this triwheel design. We only had them on the front wheels though. It took most of our design and building time just to build them and since there was more materials, wheels and more sprockets that went into creating that, it obviously cost more than a regular drive.

Stairs that move again, that'd be really cool thing for FIRST to do.

[Jeff Waegelin]

Originally posted by Etbitmydog
Stairs that move again, that'd be really cool thing for FIRST to do.

What about something like an airplane staircase? Just a set of stairs on wheels... now that would be an interesting challenge. Maybe move the staircase so you can get up to the top of a raised platform?

[DanL]

Originally posted by Sachiel7
I also think it might be a cool idea for first to scrap the QP score method, and just make your total score the QP. This would intensify the game play, and would make it easier for teams who are playing to know who's going to win, and about how many QP's they'll get. It's just too tricky to balance out a good score that easily during a match.

I don't know... with all the problems of fixing scores this year, I think this situation would make things worse....

"psst... hey buddy.... what say your team and my team work together in round 43 where we're up against each other.... this way, both of us get quite a few QP's and there's no need to be too concerned with the winner - the winner's going to get only slightly more points than the loser now that we've gotten away with that pesky 2x the losers score. C'mon, this year you really have nothing to lose! By working together instead of competing, you're sure to increase your rank even if you lose, cause whoever wins is going to get only slightly more points!"

Basically, I like the your-points-plus-2x-the-loser's points - that atleast SOME competition between teams. Without this, I think the problems of this year will just be worsened next year.

[Ryan Foley]

frisbees

something other than the 2 v 2 format

different shape field

stairs

2 out of 3 eliminations format

i liked that earlier idea someone mentioned about using moblie stairs you have to move around to get to higher platforms

QPs = raw score

[SarahB]

Originally posted by Foley350
frisbees

FURY's game design involved Frisbees. It was called Frisbee Frenzy. It also featured a large maze in the center that the drivers couldn't see into. I've attached the description for anyone interested in reading it.

[dlavery]

Originally posted by Jeff_Rice
please read this, Dave Lavery!
Autonomous is fun!

I did.

It is!


-dave

[MattB703]

Imagine an obsitle course created from something cheap and low like 4x4 timbers. There would be some sort of goal to the game besides getting througt the course. Teams could use sensors or dead reconing to get throught the course in an early autonomous mode or simply drive over the obsticles.

Obviously this is not a complete game, just a concept.

MattB

[Breanne M]

Originally posted by DougHogg
I would like to see the qualifying points be the difference in scores between the winner and the loser. If you win 50 to 40, you get 10 points. If you win 20 to 10, you get 10 points.

The idea would be to encourage defense as well as offence, and do a way with any reason for opponents to make agreements.

I really like that idea. I think it would be a lot of fun. a little more competative.

[sevisehda]

The problem with the difference being the winners score is that it encourages slaugters. The problem is FIRST wants close matches and no slauters that why you get part of your opponents score if you win, however the side issue is this causes collusion. It would be worse than raw score. Imagine the same match scored different ways.

Raw Score ..................... 50 - 40 ---> QP 50 - 40
Each teams plays there own game with some defense.

Difference ..................... 50 - 40 ---> QP 10 - -40
Each team would destroy the opposing alliances score the winner would want there opponents to score zero to maximize theres and the loser would want to kill the winners to minize there loss.

Current Method ............. 50 - 40 ---> QP 130 - 40
Each team trys to score as high as possible and collusion is a problem. Defense is played to prevent scoring.

My idea .......................... 50 - 40 ---> QP 90 - 45
Winner gets the total of all points scored, loser gets half. This would also suffer from collusion. The interesting part is a match of 60 - 30 would have the same QP. So you wouldn't even have to score points for your opponent to help them. And matches are close because the loser actually gets a higher QP than he would normally get.

I'd like to see autonomous mode stay next year, maybe be extended to 20 seconds. The problem of having it at the end would be so many teams had no auto mode this year. That the 1:40 mark would end up being the effective end of the match for most teams.

[AlbertW]

I would like to see more replicated field parts, that are portable, like Zone Zeal's goals, and not like this year's central ramp structure. If your bot was a drivetrain bot last year, you didn't have to build anything. If it moved balls, you bought soccer balls. If it captured a goal or two, you built goals.

This year, unless your bot was meant ONLY to go under the bar (or stay on the opposing side) you had to test it on a ramp structure, which wasn't TOO hard, but factor in the wire mesh and the HDPE, and that's a steep testing field cost.

[Soukup]

allright, I finally have a small idea that I'd like to share, so let me know what you think.

the 4 on 2 thing wouldn't work because how would the finals work, it has to be a standard game every time. But I would personally like a 3 on 3 game, any more than that and it gets to crowded. But what would be really sweet is a game like football or soccer. Similar to rug rage (I think that was the second year's game). Except I'd leave it up to first to make some interesting twists. (Obstacles, etc.) I would however have this function.

Each team would be allowed 2 ROBOTS. That's right 2!!! By using the soccer idea, One would be able to switch their robot out if they wanted to, by driving it over a speed-bump or some other designated area. When the robot went into that area, another would be allowed to come out. SOrt of naving an offense and defense robot if you needed it. This could be ammended by having a 4 on 4 or 5 on 5 alliance, and by letting only 1 or 2 robots from an alliance on the field at 1 time. You would be able to let certain robots switch out throughout the match. Kinda like hockey.

Personally I'd just like to see a game like soccer, with robots that shoot and have to play goalies and defense, It would allow for much greater strategy.

[TD78]

I like the 2v2 format and I think that the automonous part of the match should somehow be reincorporated into next years game. However, I didnt like how the game was set up this year. It emphasized too much on hard hitting (robots, bins, etc) rather than the finesse I thought I would be seeing (stacking). Although I dont have an idea for next years game, I would like to see something that makes teams think and not just build a drivetrain and go around and hit things.