In the past we’ve only had 2 main types of games, Shooting and Pick and Place. Are there any other archetypes people can think off?
1 Like
Water game!
30 Likes
Don’t have a name for it, but the obstacle crossing of Stronghold. Unless we are “picking and placing” the whole robot.
14 Likes
One year was basically NASCAR with big balls.
10 Likes
Laps/Relay Race (Overdrive aka nascar game), Get as many hands on the ball as possible (2014), Stacking objects up gets you more points versus the same number flat (multiple years), Playing keep away (Lunacy, also one of the few years with a trailer attachment), Mini bots
5 Likes
stares in 2001
time trials
6 Likes
The only other archetypes I can think of are both things that haven’t really been done in FIRST as games in and of themselves.
One is maneuver, that is a game based on moving the robot into (and onto) various positions or through a course. The game designers seems to have avoided things like racing games, since this would inherently favor higher resource teams that can afford fast motors (the one exception to this is some of the At Home Challenges from 2021). Many of the endgames are actually this type, like the various climbs, but those are only a part of games that are either shooting or pick-and-place as overall archetypes.
The second potential type is manipulation, that is a game based on interacting with parts of the field elements to produce effects, but not moving objects from place to place. We saw this in Stronghold and Infinite Recharge, with some of the field obstacles and with the Wheel of Fortune. But again, this has been done only as an adjunct to more typical shooting or pick-and-place games.
That’s what I can think of as possible alternative archetypes, though doubtless someone will come up with others.
2 Likes
Every game I can think of includes some sort of “obtain this game piece and deliver it to a specific point”. That action is generally separated into “shooting” and “pick and place”, as those two generic stereotypes imply different sets of viable mechanisms. But other aspects of games require more a unique approach, either requiring different types of mechanisms or significantly limiting/impacting the design of the more traditional mechanisms. Since I started, these include:
- Elevating partner robots (2007)
- Racing (2008)
- Moving targets/trailers and unique field surface (2009)
- Limits on game piece incursion inside robot frame perimeter / extension past frame perimeter (2010)
- Minibots (2011)
- Bridges (2012)
- Multi-level climbing, more vertical than horizontal (2013)
- passing between robots (2014)
- Stacking (2015)
- Defenses (2016)
- Rope climbing (2017)
- Limited climbing locations (2018)
- Platform climbing (2019)
- Color wheel / Balance climbing (2020)
- Multi-level climbing, more horizontal than vertical (2022)
- Platform balancing (2023)
Some of these we do see repeated with some variety. Multi-level climbing in 2013/2022, although there were very different designs between the two years. Balancing bridges in 2012 vs the platform in 2023, although the dimensions of each provided unique challenges. Climbing is an obvious one we see frequently, but there’s always a twist on it that makes it somewhat different each time we see it - mechanisms used for climbing in 2-17 would not have worked in 2023!
6 Likes
Unless your name was Gompei and the H.E.R.D.
4 Likes
It occurred to me a little while ago some sort of water themed game might be fun, as a field-moving-around type game, e.g. a variety of different “coral” structures you can group to make “coral reefs” (maybe with some as a sort of bucket shape you could score “fish” in). It would be absolutely chaotic because of the likely game mechanic of being able to steal the other alliance’s reefs, but there’s something to be said for the fun that chaotic games provide the strategy department.
4 Likes
This is the most feasible water game I have ever heard
3 Likes
Most FRC games try to mimic the excitement and interest of sports, and sports based games. The big sports that FRC has mostly shied away from (and really for good reason) are the combat sports like boxing, MMA… Sumo is a very popular for smaller robots because they generally don’t break due to the strength of materials vs. weight.
Some games have had elements from board games that are interesting and scale well too. Like in 2005, 2007, and 2011, and 2023… connecting “grid” type elements for a control bonus. 2005 was my favorite version of this.
A dynamic/sport that I have not seen FRC do yet, that I have thought would be interesting, but does have some challenges would be a “curling or shuffleboard” type scoring effort where the pieces are strategically slid and allowed to glide to a final scoring position that has various points vs. precision, but could also be “knocked out”. While a very neat technical challenge, it would tend to not have the action basis that other more exciting sports have.
WRT making them fun to watch, the actions can be segregated into how it looks vs. how it is. Stuff that looks easy and is easy tends to be boring. These can play a minor role in a game, but should not be the main focus. Stuff that looks easy but is actually hard to do is incredibly frustrating for the unaware audience, and thus also not a good element for the majority of the time of a match. Can be OK for an endgame type bonus, but not good for 2 minutes. Climbing a slick 45 degree ramp is a good example. Looks easy. Is doable for a human, but robots will often really really struggle. Stuff that looks hard, but is relatively easy if often a winner. The best example of this was the long shot of the frisbees in 2013 from the human feeder station. It was relatively easy to make an accurate full court shooter, and then have the human play feed them in. For a human, the mail slot was pretty difficult. For the robots, it was a much easier task.
The last category is looks hard and is hard. These are also good for a bonus so long as they are not soo difficult but also one sided that only a few teams will be able to achieve them. IE grabbing all 3 goals in 2002. Redirecting shots for looped goals in 2010. Steam bonus pressure in Auto in 2017. would be examples of those IMO.
The last thing I will throw in this thread are “cooperative” games. There are games where there is not an us against them, but a instead a we succeed together. I find these can be very enriching table games. FIRST has tried this in the past, and it is generally not well received.
So, typically the best received games resemble and play a bit like sports, but have plenty of pieces so that each team can play a role themselves. For this reason FIRST games often resemble a yard game/sport that instead of having players take turns, its just a two minute free for all with some sort of Feat of Strength demonstration at the end. You can try this out at home:
Croquet Melee
Corn Hole Bonanza
or if you want to send everyone to the hospital:
Lawn Dart and King of the Hill finisher!
7 Likes
That strategy was never legal or allowed to play because it was clearly disallowed in the rules. Literally every team thought of it during the game reveal then read the rules and decided not to waste their time building it.
Out of curiosity, what was the strategy?
Pick up the ball and park your robot in a spot near the center of the field where you can hold it above the trusses to rotate it through all 4 scoring quadrants.
This violated a rule prohibiting the robot from going in to the previous quadrant of the field. It was also almost impossible to do with the robot expansion limits imposed that year. It also would require the ball to touch the ground after crossing the start finish line each lap necessitating you to place the ball down and pick it back up which would take much more time than racing around the field and throwing the ball over the truss which is what the top teams did that year.
An additional part I liked about 2014 was the scoring was tied to each robot possessing the ball in each third of the field. So it was sort of robot-interaction and field-interaction.
High volume dumping has yet to be seen outside of 2017 low goal since 2009. I would love to see a game that involves taking a large volume of small game objects and dumping them into a goal. No need for shooting, just roll up and unload.
5 Likes
Hear me out: minibots, but they are tethered and have to traverse some sort of maze/obstacle course
3 Likes
That isn’t exactly true. It was ambiguous enough that they were able to compete at two regionals - although I don’t think it ever really worked. An update was put out right before Worlds that explicitly made it illegal.
I don’t know if this would be considered an archetype, but I think an asymmetric game could be interesting.
Red alliance would need to do tasks A and B. Blue alliance would need to do tasks B and C. Both alliances would then have an end game task as well.
Or the tasks could be randomized at match start (A/B, B/C, or A/C). This way, at least one task is shared by each alliance.
An example of the three tasks could be:
A- Pick up and deliver a flat, circular game piece (big coin into a vertical coin slot).
B- Robot collects balls. The robot then shoots the balls into a goal.
C- Stack triangle-shaped pieces as high as possible.
Any/all game pieces could be introduced into the field by HP.
Or something like that. Make the tasks varied enough that it would be difficult (not impossible) to make one manipulator do everything.
4 Likes