[Official 2008 Game Design] OK, so YOU design the 2009 game...

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Tom Bottiglieri

End game
Have one goal for bonus points that CANNOT be accomplished by both alliances, or has limited potential to be shared. Swing points are always great strategy focal points, and a massive fight at the end of the match is very exciting to watch. Hanging from a bar is the closest thing we've seen to this in the past few years.

What about the rows in '05? They were definitely swing points that were hard for both alliance's to have. I'd also classify them as "end game", but obviously not "king of the hill"/"position" points.

[evanisthat!]

This game looks a lot like the 2006 Mission Mayhem version of Aim High...
That was an exciting version of Aim High, nothing like seeing those big robots fall of the 2 sided ramp. Also it was in a cafeteria with a low ceiling so that added to the fun as well. Hope it goes well.

[SamC]

I think it would be cool if there were multiple objectives in the autonomous/hybrid period with scoring bonuses if multiple objectives are completed.

Heres the idea,

Task A - "Score High"
Task B - "Score Low"
Task C - "Score Mid"
(Would allow for each robot to do something different)

Each individual objective is worth points on its own (all objectives are of equal value to keep teams from focusing on any one task in their auto programs). But if multiple are completed you earn bonus points.

Task A is completed for +10 points
Task C is completed for +10 points
Bonus of +15 points is awarded for completing 2 tasks for a total of 35 points.
If all 3 had been completed the bonus would be +30 for a total of 60 points in the auto period.

Multiple tasks should not be completed by any one team, but instead alliance partners should work together each focusing on one objective.

[=Martin=Taylor=]

Penalties.

I don't see why these are necessary.

The GDC should design games that rely on RULES not PENALTIES. If the GDC wants teams to play a game a specific way they should just say so in the rules. If teams violate the rules they should be DQ'ed or not allowed to pass inspection.

What I don't like are games where the GDC uses penalties to restrict the game play. In my mind this is like saying "Okay, we don't want you to do this, but we'll make it possible for you to get away with it." As a result, teams wind up scoring "negative points" for their alliances...



What I'm trying to say is this: the GDC should never design a game that relies on penalties. They aren't fun, they never seem fair, they make the refs jobs harder, and they make the game more confusing.

Just my 100 cents

[Team 1708 Dave]

Hi From Pittsburgh PA,

This is very exciting to read how thought out the "Games of the Future" could be. If any of these ideas or combination of ideas are used we are in for a very challenging season. I'm a newbie to the whole FIRST competition, and truly enjoyed the experience, 08 season Pgh regional.

Here's a thought that isn't game related but maybe appreciated by the teams. A dedicated team photo spot, fitted with the current years graphics and of course FIRST regional banners and game pieces as props, for the teams to take those all to important team photos.

I understand that some venues are very tight during competition. But during the finals a quick connect rack with a back drop could be assembled. Then the teams that are interested could use the area in a orderly fashion. Our team along with every other team, at the same time it seemed, tried to take team photos with mixed results.

Team photos are more than souvenirs. They are used for marketing, recruiting and fundraising. The FIRST organization could also benefit from this simple addition. There's no way, once the teams leave the event, to recreate that moment in time or even gather everyone evolved at one time. Every emotion is experienced during the events, what better way to capture the future engineers before there famous feats.

Dave

Go Pens!!!

I've been doing a bit of design work for something along these lines: Take the Stack Attack ramp, but instead of having an upper flat area, drop that level down to the floor, in order to create a "trench" of sorts in the center of the field. Near the center of the trench would be two heavy duty steel pipes linking the two sides of the trench. Scoring would be similar to Aim High, except there would be two goals on each side, slightly lower than AIM High, and the scoring object would be foam cubes, rather than balls. Each block fired into the goals would be different values of points, based on the size of the block. In order to aid auto-scoring, a cheap RFID chip would be placed in each block, with a small directional reader in each goal. Small blocks would be worth less points, large blocks more.

For the endgame, whichever team was fully supported on the pipes, and nothing else, would gain a 50ish point bonus, enough to swing the game heavily in either direction.

EDIT: Here's a render of what I mean:

[AndyB]

Originally Posted by CraigHickman

I've been doing a bit of design work for something along these lines: Take the Stack Attack ramp, but instead of having an upper flat area, drop that level down to the floor, in order to create a "trench" of sorts in the center of the field. Near the center of the trench would be two heavy duty steel pipes linking the two sides of the trench. Scoring would be similar to Aim High, except there would be two goals on each side, slightly lower than AIM High, and the scoring object would be foam cubes, rather than balls. Each block fired into the goals would be different values of points, based on the size of the block. In order to aid auto-scoring, a cheap RFID chip would be placed in each block, with a small directional reader in each goal. Small blocks would be worth less points, large blocks more.

For the endgame, whichever team was fully supported on the pipes, and nothing else, would gain a 50ish point bonus, enough to swing the game heavily in either direction.

Good lord. So it's like king of the hill at the end, except the loser ends up upside down in pieces...

[Akash Rastogi]

Just one question Dave: Is the robocoach still going to be a position instead of a human player?

[EricH]

I've been chewing on one for a while now...

Think back to 1999. That's right, the first year of alliances, also the year of the "floppies" and the "puck". Initial field arrangement looks kind of like that and kind of like 2007...

Game object: Traffic cones. They're a challenge to handle, but there are multiple methods. Worse (or better) still, there are a few different types--I'm thinking of using two, namely, your standard "cone" shape and the "pillar" shape that has an octagonal base. Ideally, both have reflective strips (for sensors). The "tray" is described below.

Field layout: At the start of the game, a line of cones is at the midline of the field. Robots start with each in one of three (3) zones at their opponents' end of the field (just to spice things up a bit--it's been a few years). The zones are marked as follows: Colored border, white border, colored border, evenly sized. The colors are the same as the end they are at. In the middle of the field is a structure. It looks like a tray on wheels, and is about 6-8' high, and can be moved around the arena.

Game play: The object of the game is to put the cones either in the tray or in the zones of your color. The tray may be moved for more points (or a multiplier). At the end of the game, a bonus is awarded for robots that are in the "white" zone at their own end. Defense is expected. Descoring is only allowed in the floor goals; penalty for descoring from tray. Lines are counted as in, provided that anything touching the line is otherwise inside the zone. If any part is touching the ground outside the zone, no score.

Human Player: The Human Players may introduce cones into the game. Their robots will be disabled while they do so, however. Should loading zones be involved, a "no-contact" zone will also be declared to extend to about 2' outside the loading zone. Robots must be completely within the zone (within a reasonable judgment) to qualify for protection.

Autonomous: A given number of cones will have reflective tape. Seek and score. 2x normal score. (Noted by refs or by sensors that can detect the tape.)

Scoring: All scores will be assessed at the end of the match, when everything has come to rest. (typically <5 seconds)
-Cone

• in tray, 15
• in floor zone, upright, 5
• in floor zone, knocked over, 7

-"Pillar"

• Must have base to count
• in tray, 10
• in floor zone, upright, 5
• in floor zone, knocked over, 3

-"Tray"

• 20 points for owning it (more cones total, all types)
• x2 multiplier for having it in YOUR side of the field
• Tipping it is an automatic Yellow Card for safety reasons and automatic ownership to the other alliance.

-Robot in zone: 5, 10, 25 for 1, 2, 3 respectively
-Penalties, if assessed: -10, disable, Yellow card, DQ (Red card) may be applied for illegal contact or other violations. Point penalties are always -10 added to your total score.

[pitzoid]

Interactive Arenas.... Its designed/built for it.... use it

Your buddy BOB

[Dmentor]

My idea is to have robots play a variant of dodge ball. I spent some time thinking about how this might play as an FRC game and I think it matches Dave's criteria nicely. Anyways my thoughts are documented in the attachment in order to avoid a very long post but I would be happy to discuss it.

[AndyB]

Originally Posted by Dmentor

My idea is to have robots play a variant of dodge ball. I spent some time thinking about how this might play as an FRC game and I think it matches Dave's criteria nicely. Anyways my thoughts are documented in the attachment in order to avoid a very long post but I would be happy to discuss it.

I understand your logic for having 5 robots on the field at a time, but I think 5 is a little unrealistic. Maybe 4. But 5 seems a little crazy.

[TigerDrive09]

I think next year's game should simply incorporate a more balanced defense/offense objective. Overdrive, to me, was a more offensive game and not much defense as previous more exciting games. By adding the defensive role it will give veteran teams the chance to play complex offensive and or defensive strategies, however it will give rookie teams the chance to stick to an easy defensive strategy, if wanted. This will add up to a more "equal opportunity" for all different types of teams.

[Tetraman]

One word - Pinball

[bobwrit]

Throw the trash over the barrier style game:

Game Peices: 2 sets of diffrent colored 6" balls and foam cylinders or something simelar
Game Play: The robots pick up the balls, and have to hurl them over the barrier to gain points, If you knock the cylinders off of a barrier that seperates the two sides, then you get extra points. the teams can offensively play by throwing your colored balls onto the oppisite team/allience side or the teams can defensively play by throwing the oppisite teams balls back to their side.
Playing feild: A ring with a 6-7 ft. barrier in the middle
scoring:You get points for each one of your teams balls that are on the other teams side or you can get extra points for each foam cylander that your team knocked down.