Bringing Rules Back

Here is an interesting question I would love to propose to everyone on the board. Of all the rules that have been changed in the past, which one would you like to see return to FIRST this year?

I actually was thinking about a fun little rule that got changed after the 97 season, which I really wish FIRST would recall to the rule books. After Torroid Terror, FIRST disallowed the use of “projectiles” or objects that basically came free from your robot with purpose. Some of the cooler designs in the past of FIRST were from objects that were released from robots. For example, in 1994, there was a team who attempted to block the opposing team from scoring by releasing a wall that attached to the opposing teams goal. Also I believe it was 1997 where Plymouth North High School (Mr. B if you and your crew are watching, come back to FIRST guys!!!) dropped “landmines” on the field to try to hinder the movement of opposing robots. Landmines were always a fun thing to try to develop during the course of the year, and I dont see why they couldn’t return in some form without having to be tethered!

What do you think?

Hmmm that rule sounds like an awsome idea, however it should only alow a robot to drop things, I can just see some kind of projectile hitting the scoring table. But a rule I would like to see is aloowing us to use metal on our wheels again or just a radification of last years rule so we dont have to worry so much about fasteners.

I don’t want to cause any trouble, but how about bring back the time multiplier from 2001?

The faster your alliance turn off both robot, the higher the multiplier goes. :wink: Of course, once both robots are off you can’t turn them back on again.

Consider the impact on the 2000 game:

Robots would try to score balls really fast, and get up the climbing bar as fast as possible. Robots with their bots hanging on the center bar and off in the middle of the match will leave the goals wide open. That is, unless your robot climb up the center bar and extend a long arm to block the goal ;-).

Could be a challenging rule to add to a 2 vs 2 game, as long as there are multiple objective in the game. There need to be at least 3 objectives, such as the 2 goals and the center bar for the 2000 game, so that no alliance can dominate all the objectives easily and shut off.

i would like to see the time multiplier again to it brought a competitve edge that you had to do everything right alot faster.

only one question. If one alliance shuts down, does the other alliance still keep going? (does the match end once one alliance shuts down i mean)

and as far as the projectiles rule Andy mentioned, I think it would be good to allow projectiles again. It could make for some really fun robot designs.

Heck, maybe they could allow use of the EDU kits in your robot, it would be the 2002 teathered mini bots, without the teathers hehe.

Actually Ken, I am agreeing with you on this one. I think that having a stop button multiplier would add tremendous depth to the strategy of the game. Even if it wasn’t a multiplier, but instead you get like X points for stopping 15 seconds early. Or here is a kicker…how about an autonomous button. Say for instance, in addition to the 15 second Auto period at the beginning of a round, you hit a button and you close out the final 15 seconds of the round in autonomous mode for X extra points.

Whew…on second thought, I think it would give me more of a headache during the build period…too much work. Dave Lavery, please ignore this post if you have just read it. :wink:

Good Luck All,
Andy Grady

The other alliance still keep going until they decide to shut themselves off too. That’s the challenging part right there. You risk letting the other alliance dominate the field if your alliance shut yourself off.

I would love to see the time multiplier brought back. I did have add an exciting aspect to the game. You try to work so hard to get done within a certain time.

and on a side note, Id like to see it come back because ever since that year (2001) I have tried and told people to hit the red stop button to finish the game. I think i even stopped it 2 or 3 times during my last years of driving on accident only to realize that wasnt part of the game anymore… :yikes:

To be honest, I know I was talking with George Wallace about something I think would be awesome… if you choose when autonomous runs. Like, you wouldn’t have to have an autonomous if you really didn’t want to, but if you ran it the last 30 seconds of your match (for example) it would be a certain multiplier. But… once you start it, you can stop it, but only the time it’s in autonomous from start of autonomous till the end will count as a multiplier. It would make it so that multipliers wouldn’t be every match, because if it’s a close match your obviously not going to go into autonomous… yet it’ll also make teams want to really work on making the robot self-sufficient and capable in autonomous against a robot controlled by a human, which would mean we’d see a really interesting use of sensors on robots. I personally think you would find some VERY creative designs using sensors to make them work if they had to work against a human controlled bot.

I would be greatly in favor of TWO OUT OF THREE in the elimination rounds.

I second that motion.

Too late!!! (or should I say “just wait”? :rolleyes: ) Heh heh heh…

  • dave

4 days to go!!!

Ooooh just wonderfulsighs

Yes the best 2 out of 3 is needed because one of the major problems last year well i saw it as a problem but i mean you really only had to win one match last year to go on and they could be so one sided

I like the idea of time multipliers coming back if for no other reason than the speed of the matches. They could count on matches ending somewhat quicker and allow more matches to take place.

I think that the old rules about being able to detach parts could be useful if they were put into a new game. In the past games they may have had their reasons for prohibiting this and only allowing tethers. However, I think it would be awesome if they had a game where they allowed you to detach parts of your robot. And even more devious - what if somehow they allowed you to have two separate parts of your robot in motion using the edurobot RC to control the second part? I could see some teams coming up with some truly amazing designs! (Not that they wouldn’t anyway!)

I deffinatly agree with 2 out of three for the finals…more matchs …more fun…Hey Grady you forgot lifting the 98 no flipping rule… :slight_smile: Just kidding everyone :smiley: …I Also agree with leaving objects on the feild in the intent of scoreing …(only scoreing)…it proved to be pretty cool in 97 like Andy said earlyer…

6 long years Dave…6 very long, painful years!

We got our revenge though…its too bad that we did it when we actually grew to like you guys! Of course, you wont be getting my vote to re-instate the allowance of tipping mechanisms! :smiley:

Good Luck!
-Andy Grady

I bow down to your greatness Andy…and give you that sweet revenge…

Its true with want Andy’s saying …even though things that happen in the past made for a great rivalry…Today the alliances off the feild proved to be the best rivalry yet…See you guys in March ( next pit over that is.) :slight_smile:

Dave Ferreira

121 Mentor / Ambassador

All I say to many of the ideas posed for bringing back this or that rule is this: The CASUAL FAN is the standard we should judge everything by.

While WE all love this or that complex strategy, such things generally are huge confusion factors for the casual fan.

Bottom line: if it confuses my mom, it is bad for FIRST.

That says it all in my book.

Joe J.

Joe and I have been agreeing on this issue for the past 5 years on this forum, and I gotta agree with him again. If (and when) FIRST gives us a game that EVERYONE can understand, then everything will fall into place. More teams will want to join, peers who are not on the team will understand the program better, television will become interested in FIRST again, sponsors will be easier to get, cancer will be cured, the Israelis and Palestineians will live in harmony, and we will have world peace.

Well, a guy can dream, can’t he?

Andy B.