Ok, so YOU design the 2003 game...

[dixonij]

Originally posted by Andrew
Sucking could only be used if FIRST relaxed the "custom pneumatics" rule. Two years ago they prohibited suction systems from picking up the big balls.

If you read my launcher idea it consisted of three wheels, two on the sides where the sides of the frisbee would be and one on top as a guide of some sort. Having a launcher like that could also be built with a reverse function that would reverse the direction of the wheels "sucking" up the frisbee.

Interesting solution. Here's another: Have the frisbees lying on the ground. Use a system like my launcher ( or maybe even the launcher that can move up and down) and have it drive over the frisbee and
suck it up into a storage container.

This is my quote that caused the confusion. Sorry, I should have been more specific and said that you reverse the wheels and it launches the frisbee into a container. And another thing about the legal sizes of frisbees: they are classified by their weight in grams. If FIRST were to use a company that mass produced frisbees it would be easier to obtain the exact one. (I.E. using Puma Campo balls this year instead of those horrific oblong balls used 2 years ago) If any one in the Philadelphia area enjoys playing in a frisbee league, try this site www.pada.org/pada.

P.S. Another interesting idea gleaned off of Andrew's post. After the season you get a real good (depending on how well you built it) Frisbee launcher!! SWEET!!!

[Hubicki]

Regarding sucking up frisbees, it doesn't need to be so difficult. the floppys in 1999 had a velcro center so it could be picked up more easily. How about attaching a piece of velcro on one side of the frisbee so that the average team can handle them. Just a thought of course.
~Hubicki~

[Ryan Foley]

Heres my idea
First, the field is the same dimension as it has been since 2000. Across the middle of the field is the 2001 midlfield barrier and see-saw bridge. There are 4 teams in alliances of 2 (red, blue, like in 2002). Along the sides of the field are 2ft diameter donut shaped rings ("donuts"). These donuts are color coded. 10 for the red, 10 for the blue. The blue donuts start out on the red half of the field (red zone) and the red donuts start in the blue half of the field (blue zone). There are also 5 of these donuts in the alliance station fo rthe human players (that should add some challenge to being a human player ) 5ft out from the alliance station wall (alliance stations are same dimensions as 2002, but centered along the shorter sides of the field) is a 6ft tall pole to put the donuts on (like ring toss almost, robotic style). Halfway in between the bridge and each alliance station are 2 flags. The red flag is on the red side, the blue flag on the blue side.

Scoring is simple
-5 points per you color donut on a pole (which pole doesnt matter)
-10 points for each robot on your side at end of the match ( to be considered on your side some part of the robot must be TOUCHING the carpet on your side of the field. (robots on the bridge in other words, dont count as on your side unless part of them is touching the carpet on your side)
-15 points for capturing your opponents flag (capturing means that it is FULLY on your side of the field)
The match ends when the 2 minutes are up or when a flag is captured, whichever comes first

Click on the attached file below to see a picture of the field for this game i designed

[Ryan Foley]

Heres a picture of the field for the game i described in my last post. Click on the attached file to see a picture

[bheller]

Instead of just presenting a game idea first, one should detail the requirements of a "good" first game. My criteria:

-"vigorous interaction" between robots
-opportunity for a wide variety of robot types
-scoring can be explained in 3 sentences
-same size as last few years' field
-exciting for entire length of match
-offensive and defensive aspects
-reasonable field cost
-TV friendly!

Before reading further, please look at the .jpg 3-D rendering of the field. It'll make the rest of this email make tons more sense.

My ideal game would combine elements of the 2000 game, which was the most exciting in my mind, with many totally new ones. One of the best features of that game was the potential to steal balls. This year, it was just too difficult to remove balls or goals from an opponent's grasp. The "robot slam dunk" bar-grabbing aspect was great, except that some robots would lock onto the bar and could not be removed, with 1:00 left in the game or so. Games in general are more exciting when the outcome can be changed suddenly, in the last few seconds. Think about it, when a basketball game has a minute left, and one team is down by 15 pts, it ceases to be exciting. But when a final basket can put the team ahead, you watch until the end of it. Also, height adds an element of risk to the game that would increase interest to your standard tv/audience viewer. For a robot, three feet is a significant drop, one that adds significant risk.

The game, to be called "Football-fumblin' Fever" (FFF), can have its scoring described to any viewing audience in three sentences:
1. For QP's, a losing alliance gets its own points, a non-loser (win or tie) gets the sum of its own and its opponents' points.
2. An alliance get +1 pts for its own-colored footballs, +3 pts for its opponent's-colored footballs, -3 for black footballs, and +5 any yellow footballs in its own bin.
3. "King of the hill" (a robot entirely on the raised yellow platform) at the end of a match gets +20 pts.

Here’s a description of the game in words, if the render is not clear. Same size field as past few years. 2v2, robots start on diagonal sides of field. Large fixed lexan bins on each side. The footballs are standard NFL size, with a piece of retroreflective tape attached around the center. The playing surface is mostly carpet, except for the ramps, which are a more slick surface, such as acrylic, linoleum, etc. The yellow bars are thick iron, and are supported at the base so that they can hold up 260 lbs (I would really love to see pipe-traversing robots! It’d be an incredibly interesting and useful ability). Five black balls are held by the human players. Seven each of the red and blue are on the field, and three yellow balls are in each trough. The yellow king of the hill square is raised 1” off the neighboring surfaces for ease of scoring. The yellow-square to yellow football ramps are pretty steep, while the full-field-width ramps are a shallower angle. As many rules as possible have been removed to simplify the game. For example, interaction with any surface should be allowed, provided it does not damage the surface. One addition: for the first 5 seconds of the match no human contact with the robot is allowed, to promote autonomous behaviors. Footballs are used in this description, but traffic cones are also a GREAT idea. Heavier 2-foot cones could replace the yellow balls, and smaller 1-foot ones could replace the other footballs.

I can immediately think of a huge number of robot types: “ape” robots, speed-demon football collectors, football thieves, blockers, chasm-crossers, bully robots, football shooters.

A note to Dave Lavery’s question: you could put scales in each bin. With an accurate scale and limited number of differently-weighted footballs on the field, the bin contents could be established reasonably easy. Red and blue balls would weigh differently, but that’d be ok. Real-time scoring (though not final) would be great! It’d really make the FIRST game more attractive to viewers.

A note about using real-world tasks in the game: what a great idea! Examples on how to modify this game: instead of the field-width ramps, stairs could be used, or maybe each bin could be hinged with a doorknob that has to be turned, and would release all the balls.

A few problems I can think of with this game: one, the finals would be different from QP matches. Four different colors of ball may be excessive, and negative balls may not be “in the spirit of FIRST.” I doubt whether red and blue are even necessary. Also, the three-foot chasm may cause robots to break. To that, I say: too @$%$#in bad!!! Design a robust robot and you won’t have that issue!

The trough area is intentionally blind to operators. Maybe the balls should be in random positions there, to encourage automatic football collection? I think the “area blind to operators but not to robot” approach hold promise for autonomous behaviors, but I can’t think of the best way to implement it.

[Hubicki]

umm... WOW!
To start off, I really like your idea. It is very very good and the 3D thingy is a cool representation of the field.

A couple suggestions:

-I don't think the 5 second rule is really necessary at the beginning. The brilliantly designed field with blind spots should induce autonomy on its own. Also, I dob't think anything on the field can be randomly placed out of fairness to all teams. Also, teams could just look at the field while they are setting up the robot.

- the 3-foot chasm... ihh... I don't like the idea of robots plumitting and breaking. That could be very frustrating to any team. Its hard to protect a 130 lb (6.02 kg) robot from a 3 foot (.9144m) drop.
V^2 = V0^2 + 2ax
V(final) = 4.233 m/s

Impulse equation:
F*dt = m*dv
F = -4.233 * 6.02 / dt
Recoil Force = 25.48 N / duration of incidental contact in seconds. (i think thats right)

Unless you have absolutely huge bumpers all the way around your robot... ack... I think thats a lot of force on your chassis. So I would avoid that aspect. I'd make it a steeper ramp instead.

-The negative footballs. Putting those in play reduces the potential QPs of the match. Theoretically, using them would hurt both teams, which is bad.

-I'm a little worried about the Bins that the balls go into. How tall are they. If they are more than 4 or 5 feet deep, then robots would have a really hard time stealing the footballs in them. I'd say keep them rather shallow.

Everything else is really good and it would make an excellent game.
~Hubicki~

[Hubicki]

also, any pits or chasms could be potentially disastrous to the game. To turn the tides of the game, one robot could shove another over the cliff and cause damage.

[Joe Matt]

This was the thread that they talked about at the Kick-Off about us designing the play and it was on CD. Here ya go!

[AJ Quick]

Read it again with some words highlighted to see who got their voices heard!

Check It Out Here

[Jon K.]

Originally posted by Natchez
Wacky Warehouse game.

I would Have to say that this seems most like the game this year.
Also did you notice the creator of the game this year is also the creator of the thread. Dave your a tricky person. But at least people were able to have some say in the game and that is a good thing.

[Alfred Thompson]

I hope I don't regret suggesting stacking boxes.

[Doug]

haha good guess too bad the date posted gives you away

[Alfred Thompson]

How does a date of 05/07/2002 "give me away?" That is when I suggested the game have stacking boxes. GO back and look. It is on page two of this topic.

[Doug]

my bad ziggy i was looking at the post right above mine i did not know you were refering to another one of your posts in this beast of a thread

[Hendrix]

You missed Brett W's post on the first page about the plastic ice. That has to be what the top of the ramp is, cause it sure is slick.