Ok, so YOU design the 2003 game...

[dlavery]

Okay, it has been a week since the National Championships, and you have had some time to reflect on what worked about this year’s game, and what didn’t. Are you sitting around, already thinking about next year’s competition, and wondering what it might be like? Well, how about an opportunity to possibly influence what next year’s competition might be like?

Several groups are working with and within FIRST to address various aspects of the challenge for next year’s competition. They are looking for good ideas, game concepts, rule suggestions, play field designs, etc – everything from a basic idea for a game to a set of detailed rules and parts drawings.

With that thought in mind, I would like to open a thread to discuss ideas, concepts, and specific suggestions for next year’s game. What we are looking for here are specific, detailed ideas or suggestions about how to design the game for next year.

I have been through all the related CD threads posted to date. There is no need to re-hash the pros and cons of prior games, or get too deep into philosophical discussions about prior years. We want to figure out how to go forward from here, and help build an exciting, challenging, stimulating and engaging competition for next year.

So, here are the ground rules:
- The game should provide a sufficiently difficult challenge that it will stress the abilities of the students and engineers on the teams to design and build a solution.
- The game should be audience friendly and presumably TV-friendly (i.e. you can explain the game to a TV audience in 30 seconds or less, it is easy to follow and exciting for the audience, and visually interesting for the entire game).
- Any field elements must be able to be constructed from readily availably and inexpensive materials (ask yourself this question "can I buy all the parts at Home Depot or Builders Square?")
- The game should embody the values represented by FIRST (i.e. brings out the best aspects of a competitive spirit, does not promote needless destruction or violence).
- The game should be structured so that ingenuity of design is just as important (or even more so) than advanced fabrication.
- There are no assumptions about the need for two-team alliances, limiting each round to just four teams, playfields in a single plane, etc.
- There is a preference (but not a requirement) for robots to have both offensive and defensive roles in the game. There is a preference (but not a requirement) for a role for the human player.

The need for non-tangling tethers is entirely up to you.

Here is what I can guarantee: EVERYTHING that you suggest will be read, discussed, and considered. Nothing will be ignored.

Here is what is not guaranteed: There is no promise that anything that is suggested will actually get used. For any of a number of reasons, the suggestions may be impractical, incompatible, or unimplementable, and would not be incorporated into future games. Likewise, there is no guarantee that you will receive a response on anything you submit. If a suggestion is incorporated into the game, you will probably not know about it until the game is revealed next year. If it is not incorporated, you may never hear why.

If at any time during this year's competition you thought "if I had designed the game I would have done it like this..." then here is your chance! I know that if there is a single place to go for this sort of input, it will be this forum! Let's hear your thoughts.

- dave lavery
FIRST Executive Advisory Board