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

[whytheheckme]

Originally Posted by AndyB

2002 - Soccer balls (Standard soccer ball...)
2003 - Bins (As Joe said, available at any Target)
2004 - Playground Balls (Standard playground balls I think, could be wrong though)
2005 - PVC Tetras (Pretty easy to build yourself and you only needed a few)
2006 - Poof Balls (Like $4 or $5 a piece if I remember right, though a bit hard to find in some places)
2007 - Inner Tubes (Dirt Cheap, only needed the ones in the kit)
2008 - Trackballs (Only needed the one supplied assuming you didn't pop it)

I think 2009 marked the first game where aquiring the game piece was a signifigant problem. And it wasnt really FIRST's fault.

I don't know what your talking about when you say "very high markups" either. Mind elaborating? I'm pretty sure the Orbits were the same cost from FIRST as they were from Walmart... at least after shipping and handling. The cost per ball was only $3 from FIRST.

I s'pose I was mostly referring to 06, 08 and 09. If you wanted a trackball, the only place that I can remember our team being able to find it was through FIRST, and the price seemed a bit much for an exercise ball... This year the orbit balls were pretty difficult to find (due to the discontinuation), and if you wanted any number of them, it was almost impossible to get (especially early on in the season (even through FIRST)).

I guess I just wish FIRST went with more generic item that can be purchased at local retailers reliably, like in 03 and 04. Lately FIRST has been moving to very specific items in which supply can be a major problem (especially in a game where 120 of the game piece can be on the field at any one time, and getting a dozen of such said piece can be nearly impossible.)

Also, I could be wrong, but I remember FIRST marking up the trackball to almost double the price found on *very* similar items from other online retailers.

[Joe Matt]

Every item you can get from a local store for "cheap". They might not be exactly the same, but general size and grip usually remained the same. Plus FIRST provides example balls when they can in the kits.

[Chris is me]

and no penalties for things that are likely to happen in every game - that's a sign of poor game design and confuses the spectators.

I disagree. This is more a sign of poor game play from people that refuse to accept the penalties at hand rather than poor design. See: my opinion on <G22>.

2005 - PVC Tetras (Pretty easy to build yourself and you only needed a few)

I was pretty sure they were metal, heavy, and very hard to build.

In FIRST's defense, the game piece was supposed to be very easy to obtain. You can't blame FIRST for the company folding.

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

I was pretty sure they were metal, heavy, and very hard to build.

Nope. PVC and not really hard to build.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

I was pretty sure they were metal, heavy, and very hard to build.

In FIRST's defense, the game piece was supposed to be very easy to obtain. You can't blame FIRST for the company folding.

I'm with Akash--they were conduit PVC, and not terribly hard to build or store flat. The official goals were metal, but practice ones were often the same as the tetras.

And the company didn't fold; the company that was supposed to sell them decided not to sell them anymore at the last minute. The company that made them is still going.

[bobwrit]

When does the 2010 suggestion thread start?

[oddjob]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

I disagree. This is more a sign of poor game play from people that refuse to accept the penalties at hand rather than poor design. See: my opinion on <G22>.

Those involved with FIRST will learn all the rules and more or less understand every penalty flag. The team sponsors and other spectators who come for the competition but didn't bone up on the rule book will not. This years game was frustrating for me because the posted score when the final horn sounded was never the final score, sometimes off by many tens of points and possibly changing who won or lost. At times, it seemed like a random number generator was involved.....

A game that can remove that confusion is way ahead. I'm not sure if has been a FIRST objective in the past to have a game with scoring clarity. Did they publish a game design rubric? That's the starting point.

[Chris is me]

I almost want to go through TBA and figure out how off the real time scoring was. I mean, it was never accurate, but if it showed more than a 15 point differential it seemed to pick the winner.

I think I'm alone in liking the suspense, though. I think the minute you have to wait for the referees to count every moon rock makes the moment they reveal the final score that much better. And "imperfect score keeping suspense" is way better than "too many penalty suspense", right? So I take it the next game the GDC makes will probably be one where you can know the exact score very easily.

[CORE 2062]

Originally Posted by JesseK

Incorporating all of these ideas into one game could become very complicated, so I will try to break them up so that they are modular. Note that I have only seen FRC games from 2005 through 2008.

Have two different sizes or two different shapes for game pieces. This will allow a 3-tiered offensive design strategy that teams may employ based upon their creativity, skill, and experience. Novice teams may chose to only pick up the "easiest" piece, intermediate teams the "harder" piece, and veteran (or ambitious) teams will pick up both. The use of two game pieces implies two different tasks, however one game piece may be used for the end game whereas the other may be rugged and intended for most of the gameplay.

There may be a part of the field that is either blocked from view of the drivers or at least very obstructed from view. When a robot enters that zone, the human player may (via IR remote control again) tell the robot to perform some function that will greatly aid the alliance in the end game. This not only forces teams to prepare for the end-game ahead of time but also re-incorporates an active human player during tele-operated mode.

Flying game pieces are exponentially more exciting than game pieces that are placed. This was particularly apparent this year when 4 trackballs were hurdled at the same time by 4 different teams. Philly got very LOUD during the two Final matches that this happened.

Finally, I would like to see two separate surfaces for the playing field. Regardless of elevation, I would like to see one solid ("slick") surface in addition to the normal carpeted surface. This allows for variations in design decisions about drive trains without there being one "best" drive train. If the surface were elevated 1 foot, accesible via non-carpeted inclines (~12 degrees over ~3 feet), defense-style bots could play "king of the mountain".

you got your wish

[Koko Ed]

Here's my idea since I didn't get one up last year.