|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] Radical Tournament Ideas
Quote:
Think about it: Maybe if you knock off the ball during autonomous, you get the right to disable one robot from the competing alliance at some point during the competition for 10 seconds. Maybe if you cap a goal you get to "unfreeze" one of your partners (and freeze yourself or the 3rd alliance partner). I don't know if it is good idea, but it sure is different. Joe J. |
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] Radical Tournament Ideas
I think it would be more fun if the random computer alliance selection was a little more random instead of it being where the lower number teams were allied with the higher munber teams.
|
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] Radical Tournament Ideas
Quote:
|
|
#4
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] Radical Tournament Ideas
I like Heidi's idea... I've been playing with something similar to what she said in my head for a long time. It's kind've hard to describe without a game scenario so I'm going to make up a completly hypothetical game scenario just to show my idea. This particular scenario uses a 2 vs 2 vs 2 robot match setup in a circular like field (which I know neither the circle field or 3 sets of 2 robots will probably happen, just easiest to use).
Now, at the beginning of the match you'd have whatever the points are and 3 zones (one for each alliance). The matches would be 3 minutes, at the end of every minute your zones change. In other words, you recieve points at each minute park. This would force teams to get points into a zone and then get them the heck out've there and onto their next zone for the next minute part. This allows for many scenarios too occur, and requires teams to have a good offensive and defensive bot... but would involve more complicated scoring, but would result in alliance partners working together (whereas this year some teams would just go for the bar and the other partner would remain to do the rest... which can work, but there's no cooperation). The only way this could work would be drastically redoing the field and robot setup, but would always keep a consistantly upbeat match being both exciting to viewers... as well as a PAIN when it comes to strategy. Tidbits of this could be incorporated into many of the other drastic changes in this thread already. But DEFINITLY bring back the time-rush scenario we saw in 2001... although I wasn't around, it is much more exciting to have a time crunch in some way. With robots competing against one another it's highly doubtful they'll all shutoff before the end of the 2 minutes, but if you make something in the scoring happening in time increments, there will be a ton of rushing... but you want to make it dynamic so teams don't completly win a match. If you brought back the boxes from 2003 and mixed them with this zones, yea... that'd be fine and dandy to put all the boxes in this zone... but make teams get them back out (like in the 2003 game, make them have to get the boxes back over to the other side after a minute, but make it simpler to do with fewer obstacles to have more robot interaction). This would encourage teams to try many new strategies (In my mind now, I'm visualizing robots like Team 25's 2000 robot... where in that game they could be dynamic... but if you made it where a arm can't just move things around, it'll create a very strategic game). Just my thoughts. It could be incorporated in several ways. I'd love to see dynamic scoring though. |
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] Radical Tournament Ideas
Her it goes:
I would like to see something moving or changing on the field. I think that the field should always be changing. Also how about a rocky surface? I would like to see a "crater?" filled field. I relize that this would cause dificulties in teams field setup, but imagine the challenge. Can anyone say drive train? Also I think that the compition time is to short.Watching it from the stands, it seems to be over before it starts. |
|
#6
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] Radical Tournament Ideas
First suggestion...Tag team matches...have 3 team alliances with all 3 robots on the field. However, only allow two to be powered at one time. You could require the non-powered robot to be against your teams wall at all times. You could also say that you can only switch once, so once you depower one of the robots that was powered at the beginning of the match, you can not use that robot again.
Second suggestion...have scoring zones like in several games of the past, but make it so where the robot is at the end of the match determines the alliance it is on and how many points the team gets. So all four robots could end up in the same scoring zone and all get the same amount of points, or it could be 1v3 or 2v2. You could also allow for multipliers for the fewer number of bots on an alliance. So you could get a better multiplier if you play by yourself against the other 3 bots. |
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] Radical Tournament Ideas
For the championship, another day should be added for qualification rounds to give teams in each division a more mixed alliance pairings.
This may not be practical, since the practice rounds are on thursday. |
|
#8
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] Radical Tournament Ideas
Actually, as far as I know, all it would take for, a member of 433 (pure example here) to drive our robot this year would be for them to acquire one of our operator badges. Maybe throw in a shirt to keep the eyebrows from being raised.
Although I think there'd have to be some original team control...lest you have teams driving it like they stole it. And wrecking it accordingly. |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] Radical Tournament Ideas
Drawback to Current Tournament Structure
In order to control your destiny, teams have to place into the top 8. Otherwise, you have to rely on a very political alliance selection process to get into the eliminations. Ranking in qualifying is equally strongly affected by alliance pairings as it is by actual performance. Teams whose performance (for whatever reason) places them at the bottom of the rankings, have to keep playing, without any real hope of making eliminations. This sometimes incentivizes "bottom of the ranking teams" to engage in wanton brutality. Tournament Structure Idea Day One ... Qualifying This would proceed the same way that qualifying currently proceeds. Random pairings. Ranking proceeds with wins/losses, high score, etc. At the end of day one, the top 24 seeds are passed on to Round Two. Teams must pass a functional test/reinspection. Failing this would remove them from the seeding. The remaining seeds are done for the competition. If the bottom teams want to spend day two working on their robot, they can do so without match interruption. If they want to go home and save some hotel money, they can do that as well. This "cut" is the same as in golf. Day Two ... Seeding Scores for the top 24 teams are zeroed; however, rankings are retained. Teams are not paired randomly for seeding matches. Round One Seed 1+2 versus Seed 23+24 Seed 3+4 versus Seed 21+22 Seed 5+6 versus Seed 19+20 Seed 7+8 versus Seed 17+18 Seed 9+10 versus Seed 15+16 Seed 11+12 versus Seed 13+14 Round Two Seed 1+3 versus Seed 22+24 Seed 2+4 versus Seed 21+23 Seed 5+7 versus Seed 18+20 Seed 6+8 versus Seed 17+19 Seed 9+11 versus Seed 14+16 Seed 10+12 versus Seed 13+15 Round Three Seed 1+7 versus Seed 18+24 Seed 2+8 versus Seed 17+23 Seed 3+9 versus Seed 16+22 Seed 4+10 versus Seed 15+21 Seed 5+11 versus Seed 14+20 Seed 6+12 versus Seed 13+19 Rankings are determined by win/loss or high score total in these three matches. Day Two Alliance Selection Alliance selection proceeds with the top eight after the Seeding matches. Day Two Eliminations Eliminations proceed as they do right now. Advantages to this scheme Teams that are out of contention can focus on going home or preparing for the next competition. Teams that are contenders can focus on making the top 24, instead of the top eight. You just have to make the cut to be within striking distance. Teams that are contenders get more matches. Ie there is an instant reward for making the top 24. Teams are rewarded for making the top eight in qualifying. They potentially have an easier match schedule at the beginning of day two. Teams that "luck" into the top eight will have to win against a tougher schedule on day two and will probably not remain in the top eight. Good teams that are "unlucky" on day one can play into the top eight on day two. Teams in the top 24 have a smaller field to scout after day one and will make better alliance picks on day two. If you are in the top 24 at the end of day one, you know that you will be playing in eliminations and can prepare accordingly. Day two is deterministic. It can be scheduled more tightly. FIRST can adhere to an agenda, especially vacating the arena on time. Disadvantages to this scheme A good team with exceptionally bad luck can be eliminated without making the cut. This is a disadvantage to the current scheme as well. It is just not as apparent. |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] Radical Tournament Ideas
Another Tournament Structure Idea
Ditch the qualifying, alliance selection, etc entirely. Maintain the 2v2 format. Go with a fully deterministic n-loss elimination bracket, where n depends on the number of teams at the tournament. Start by randomly assigning all teams at the tournament to a position in the opening bracket. Assign byes to each bracket based on the number of teams in the tournament. The mechanism... Two teams play against two teams. The winning alliance moves to the next level in the current bracket, but the alliance members are split. The losing alliance drops to the next bracket, at the current level of that bracket. If a team loses n times, it is eliminated. The winners of the n brackets play into a single elimination tournament to determine the eventual winner. For large numbers of teams, you would have to have fewer than 8 brackets. But, you could terminate the loser's bracket play early. For instance, the winner of the first loser's bracket would be the second seeded alliance and the loser of the first loser's bracket would be the third seeded alliance. Final alliances are determined "randomly" by how you end up in your bracket. Ie no alliance selections. Let's say you have 40 teams at an event. The winners bracket would be 5 levels 40 teams (10 matches)->20 teams (5 matches)->10 teams (2 matches + 2 byes) -> 6 teams (1 match + 2 byes) -> 4 teams (1 match) -> winner 1 The first loser's bracket would be 7 levels 20 teams (5 matches)->20 teams (5 matches)->14 teams (3 matches + 2 byes)->10 teams (2 matches + 2 byes)->8 teams (2 matches)->6 teams (one match + 2 byes)->4 teams (1 match) -> winner 2 The second loser's bracket would be 8 levels 10 teams (2 matches + 2 byes)->6+10 teams (4 matches)->8+6 teams (3 matches + 2 byes)->6+2+4 teams (3 matches)->6+4 teams (2 matches + 2 byes)->4+2+2 teams (2 matches)->4+2 teams (1 match + 2 byes)->4 teams (1 match) -> winner 3 This can be continued into the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh loser's bracket. Although this looks complicated (and I probably made a mistake or two), it is algorithmic and can be programmed without much effort. The result being, with N teams and n losses (where n is ideally 8), you can figure out how many matches are required, what teams get byes at each level, etc. If you play the first round, then the first loser's round, then the second loser's round, etc. Then resume with the second round, the second first loser's round, etc., you automatically get the desirable "time between matches" match spacing. This tournament structure would have two corollary benefits. The teams which are going to "lose out" would be eliminated fairly early. This would give them time to work on their robots for the next competition or enjoy the rest of this competition. In other words, if you go 0-8, you'll be all done by about 2:00 on the first day, having played in the first round of each bracket. On the other hand, the suspense for this tournament would build as you approach the winners of the brackets. The top seed would be spat out first, followed by the second seed, etc. You could even have a team go 4-0 early in the first day, only to lose the winner's bracket final. This team (4-1) could potentially play (and lose) in all of the bracket finals. Another wrinkle, to retain alliance selection, the eight alliances could pick a third partner for final eliminations. Since neither alliance partner would be "captain" this would require considerable cooperation between the two. |
|
#11
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] Radical Tournament Ideas
Quote:
Also, how about random bot selection? meaning: you don't know what bot your driving! ![]() |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] Radical Tournament Ideas
how about this: a seperate division for regional winners.
|
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] Radical Tournament Ideas
I'm presuming the reason for this thread is to question everything and figure a way to make the FIRST robotics competition more spectator friendly.
So, why continuous 2:00 matches? FIRST has somewhat broken up the matches (especially in 2003) by having human player time, then autonomous mode, then remote control. Although the break up for autonomous mode kind of took the flow out of the game, this was not necessarily a bad idea. So, why not extend this idea. Have a series of 1:00 plays (say three) with a :30 robot reset between them. For example, run 1:00 remote control, then stop. Robots are returned to starting position (but the field remains in its current state) in :30 (otherwise you have to time out or take a delay of game penalty). Run a 1:00 remote control, then stop. Reset the field. Run the final 1:00 remote control. Count score. This would be more like the traditional American sports, football, baseball, basketball. Hence, American viewers would be more able to clue into the game. Also the drama between plays would build. This would also keep the problem of robots going "wheels up" or getting disabled early in a match or getting entangled from determining the outcome of the match. By giving :30 between matches, the coaches of the two alliance partners can plan out the next play, rather than having to adapt on the fly. It would also allow the refs more time to consult and assess penalties or warn teams so that "play outside the rules" would be less likely to affect the outcome of a match. It would further allow a more accurate "real time score" to be computed. By allowing time between plays, the audience would have a chance to see the drama of a match build, play by play. If you think about most modern spectator sports, the "stop action" is as important as the action. Even the "continuous action" sports (soccer, hockey) have a kind of "stop action" as the ball or puck transfers from one side of the field to the other. |
|
#14
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] Radical Tournament Ideas
Quote:
The only problem I see with the idea is that you'd have timing and field issues. I mean, we're looking at four minutes of matches, PLUS field reset (which takes longer than :30, trust me), and reintroducing the next set. And if the field's not reset after each phase, then trust me--the field will be disturbed, especially if it's anything like this year. I mean, there's no way you can walk around a field and not bump into a few balls (unless ComBBAT is on the field, of course (wink wink)). |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: [Official 2005 Game Design] Radical Tournament Ideas
Quote:
Quote:
If you consider that a team cannot get their bot back to start in :30, then they would receive a delay of game penalty. In other words, you should be thinking about getting your robot back "home" between plays. So, the last :10 of each play would probably be robots heading back "home" similar to 2002's game. This kind of game may also require more human players. The HP role could be purely getting the robot back into position between plays. You might need 5 players in such a case (driver, manipulator, coach, HP reset 1, HP reset 2). I realize that such a match structure would mean fewer matches per tournament. However, you would have more match time per match. Overall, you would probably get more match time with a longer match sequence than with more shorter matches, where significant time is consumed by setting up the playing field and getting robots/teams into position. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| [Official 2005 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2005 game... | dlavery | FRC Game Design | 37 | 26-10-2004 23:15 |
| [Official 2005 Game Design] Game Elements and Subtasks | dlavery | FRC Game Design | 60 | 19-10-2004 21:06 |
| [Official 2005 Game Design] Autonomy Discussions | dlavery | FRC Game Design | 53 | 04-09-2004 22:29 |
| Ideas about the new game | John JediMaster | Rumor Mill | 61 | 05-10-2003 16:36 |
| Ok, so YOU design the 2003 game... | dlavery | General Forum | 157 | 07-01-2003 23:55 |