"Competition format" game suggestions

Now that FIRST has officially announced that the game will be returning back to a “competition format” for next year, what type of game would people like to see that follows a competition format?

Personally, I would like to see a game that gives teams more opportunity to develop automated features on their robot. In the past I have felt that there is very little opportunity for the students interested in computer programming and electrical to become involved. I’m not sure how a game could be constructed that allows for more opportunities of this type, but one example would be to have a more hilly terrain where keeping track of the robot’s center of mass and orientation would be extremely important. The past two years we’ve had a ramp/bridge, but I feel there could be a lot more in the game that would allow CS/electrical people to get involved.

Patrick

*Originally posted by patrickrd *
**Now that FIRST has officially announced that the game will be returning back to a “competition format” for next year, what type of game would people like to see that follows a competition format?

Personally, I would like to see a game that gives teams more opportunity to develop automated features on their robot. In the past I have felt that there is very little opportunity for the students interested in computer programming and electrical to become involved. I’m not sure how a game could be constructed that allows for more opportunities of this type, but one example would be to have a more hilly terrain where keeping track of the robot’s center of mass and orientation would be extremely important. The past two years we’ve had a ramp/bridge, but I feel there could be a lot more in the game that would allow CS/electrical people to get involved.

Patrick **

when was the announcement???

I actually wanted it to return to the old days of 1 vs 1 vs 1. Well, in order to get more teams on quickly, you’d probably want to make it with 5 or more teams, instead of 3. But then you have the informal alliances popping up.

I’d still like to see some kind of limitation. Whether that’s Justin’s idea of cutting down the dimensions or the weight limit, or the idea of removing something usually crucial to the robot (like, maybe, wheels), or, using one of my friend’s ideas, and totally limiting vision of the drive crew by having them watch the whole match from a monitor that is showing the view from a camera on the robot. (I really like that last idea, because it would add this awesome aspect of knowing the best place to put the camera as well as focus on driving ability…though the “outside contact” rule would have to be seriously enforced)

I think the reason why I’d like to see limitation so much is because, well, I havent known of any limitations getting smaller throughthe years, and we havent done something to drasically change a lot of these robots.

Plus, wouldnt a smaller kit of parts cut down on costs anyway?

I’m all about a return to the good ol’ 2 v 2 alliance system. I hope that’s the format that FIRST is looking to return to. 1 on 1 was good…but alliances opened up so many more possibilities.

As for gameplay - I’d like to see something completely and totally new. Something that would level the playing field for veteran and rookie teams alike. One example - a water hazard. No one in FIRST has ever had to deal with a robot that had to worry about water before. Or throw another challenge in front of us…take the old ramp, but instead of carpet, make it wood sprayed down with WD-40 - force a robot to deal with different traction problems. I’m not really sure if it would work, but really, ideally i’d like to see something completely new, not just a few of the older games recycled into 2002.

What about the rest of you?

~ lora

What about having terrain that is “rocky” rather than flat and smooth? I don’t think this has been used before and it would test traction, balance when the cg changes, and skill by the drivers. Different fields should have “hills” and flats in the same place but have the same number of peaks and flats all of equal size. I say this because it would be impossible to have muliple feilds each with the same positioning of peaks. With this sort of terrain the game could be a scavenger hunt. The teams search for items at the same time trying to gain more points then the competition. Does that make sense or do I need to clarify?

I don’t know if that has been done before. It depends if you consider the corn from “Maze Craze” a rocky terrain.

I do like the idea of a water hazard, but you have to remember, even if no team has done something like that, some of the engineers have. This includes all 3 NUWC teams, and probably most of the navy teams.

*Originally posted by EddieMcD *
**…you have to remember, even if no team has done something like that, some of the engineers have. This includes all 3 NUWC teams, and probably most of the navy teams. **

Well, that’s a given. But then we could say we wanted to launch robots into space - and then have to say the NASA teams have an unfair advantage over the rest of us. Or with wheeled robots, are we going to accuse GM or Ford of an advantage over the rest of us with sponsors that specialize in other feilds?

Truth be told, although the NUWC and Navy teams have had engineers used to working in water - I doubt it’s in the format quite like a FIRST competition. Think about the odd kits we have - and I doubt many engineers regulary make boats or submersable robots with drill and window motors :wink: I think as much as any one change can, something like that would really level the playing field among teams.

~ lora

When did FIRST make the announcement?

Sean (Who personally would like to see a repeat of 1999)

*Originally posted by Lora Knepper *
**

Well, that’s a given. But then we could say we wanted to launch robots into space - and then have to say the NASA teams have an unfair advantage over the rest of us. Or with wheeled robots, are we going to accuse GM or Ford of an advantage over the rest of us with sponsors that specialize in other feilds?

Truth be told, although the NUWC and Navy teams have had engineers used to working in water - I doubt it’s in the format quite like a FIRST competition. Think about the odd kits we have - and I doubt many engineers regulary make boats or submersable robots with drill and window motors :wink: I think as much as any one change can, something like that would really level the playing field among teams.

~ lora **

kinda like our engineers from Rolls-Royce. if FIRST were to make a game that involved flying, i doubt that we would have an advantage eventhough our engineers design helecopter and jet engines everyday. there’d be no way that any one of the teams could have an advantage in games like these.

*Originally posted by Sean_330 *
**When did FIRST make the announcement?

Sean (Who personally would like to see a repeat of 1999) **

FIRST made this announcement at the team forum. In NH, I think the wording was something to the effect of “Next year we will be returning to a competition format.” While that is a very broad announcement, it does rule out a 4vs0 format that we had last year.

Patrick

Thank god.

After watching the junkyard wars on bridging machines i think having a pit to cross would be really kool. The only probnlem with all of our games is that feilds are expensive to build, and first tries too make them inexpensive and easy to make so tems can have them.

Andrew

Though competition format coming back is very cool, it does not neccisarily mean that there isnt a 4v? possibility. Why not 2 placebos vs. 4 teams? The placebos would be much better engineered and have had time to test out many options. There could be maybe 6 similar placebo’s per field, each with a different function, which would be 30 placebo’s with 5 fields. There would be a placebo corral and a Denim-coat juntio… no wait, sorry, couldnt resist that one… But 6 placebos assigned to a field would keep the repair and transfering from field to field down.

Another thing to keep in mind (that I’m probably rehashing) is robot and human saftey. Water creates hazards for both the robot and teams - electrical shocks to teams, and more robots will be more likely to be disabled. And once your electrial system is shot, especially rookie teams, that’s pretty much it, unless innovationFIRST was willing to constantly shell out these parts. Though it could be on them to make water-proof connectors and parts…

The WD40 on a ramp, while cool, would also pose saftey hazards to robots and people - people standing on the ramp or going to fetch thier robots and slipping or the robot slipping. That’s also a pain to clean up and transport, upkeep, etc.

Instead of WD40, what about rollers on the floor or a ramp? They could be disabled by having a lever pulled by a robot, adding the potential for more automation on robots. And how about secondary levels, or bridges? With combined interactivity between the ground bots and the floor bots somehow (like bridge bots have access to levers that modify the game floor or only they can maneuver the goals or scoring objects.)

And what about scoring objects??? Once in mind keeping robot damage and human damage to a minimum, some ideas I’ve got follow:

SOFT NERF footballs - people have always wanted footballs, but the danger to the players was rather obvious.

Those punching-clown thingies. Those would be neat and rather entertaining, but would have a high rate of damage done to them.

The moving goals were kinda neat. How about combine them with a puck-style apparatus. You have to drag the goals onto the puck to gain points or multipliers, and the goals were shorter and had a raised center, and a small lip, bearly holding in whatever scoring objects would be used.

Weebles. Teehee. Weebles wobble but they dont fall down. Though they would stay down under a set of treads. Weebles would go great with the above goal.

This one is an odd one that I’ve come up with, similar to floppies and torrids. Make an 18 inch size frisbee out of NERF foam, and cut a 6 inch hole in the center. The outside rim would be a 2inch thick flat spot, covered in velcro, and the inside would be a slim half-inch thick, making it like a modified donut. The problem with these is it would be hard to make home-made versions.

How about denim clothing??? The robot with the most stylish Dean-Doll at the end of the round gets a bonus. There are three kinds of denim, each worth varying amounts of points, torn denim, blue denim, and almost-bleached white denim. That would go great with a 1on1on1 game. Besides, what team wouldnt love to have a Dress-Me-Up-Dean Doll???

Stick a scoring-tower in me, I’m done. Well, for the next hour anyways… B^P

Well, those were a lot I’d say. But I think that nerf style footballs would be quite interesting. Didn’t quite understand the foam ring one tho. As for how we’d do competition this year. Alliances are good. But I believe that 2v2 has been done before therefore, the gurus would want something new and different. Not sure how they’d do it. But I like the idea of 4v2 placebos. That would be quite challenging and really fun.

Laurel Noel

How about 2 on 2 on 2? It would haver the teamwork of the '99/'00 games, but the competition of the older games.

I think that any time you have a game in which there are more than 2 entities (teams or individuals) competing at the same time, informal alliances will result making the game not fair to the better teams. It is only natural that everyone want to bring down the best team thereby moving your own team up in the standings.

It occurred regularly in the 1 on 1 on 1 games in which one of the robots would defend against the good robot while the 3rd robot would try win and get 2nd place for the defensive robot.

If you have only two entities in the match, you have to be very calculating in your tradeoff between offense and defense and “ganging up” on a robot is typically not a good strategy. For instance, in basketball, it is common to double-team a player. But as the saying goes: if someone is being double-teamed, someone else is wide open. In the 2-on-2 game, if one alliance tried to double team a robot, that leaves a lone robot free to score points at will.

*Originally posted by Chris Hibner *
**For instance, in basketball, it is common to double-team a player. But as the saying goes: if someone is being double-teamed, someone else is wide open. **

Basketball?!?! Did someone say basketball?

I’m with ya, Chris…

Let’s play some HOOPS!!!

I can see the TechnoKoko-dunk-o-matic now… hmmm…

Andy B.

Well, that’s sort of what we did in '00, '98, '96, '94, and the 2 vs. 2 format that we used at this year’s Battlecry. I think no matter what you do, it’s going to turn out similar to basketball.

*Originally posted by Andy Baker *
**

Basketball?!?! Did someone say basketball?

I’m with ya, Chris…

Let’s play some HOOPS!!!

I can see the TechnoKoko-dunk-o-matic now… hmmm…

Andy B. **

What about soccer? That would be a good game to start with. It would give us a year to get into the thought process before we would have to pick up the ball and dribble. Soccer teams have 11 players plus subs, plenty of teams would get to play and it would be head to head competition. A poll could be taken on the ship date as to what teams designed what type of robot, ie goalie or field player for reference to make the teams.