If you Could Design and Organize 2012...

If you could design and organize the 2012 FRC competition,

  1. What would the game consist of.
  2. What would be the scoring elements.
  3. What would be the basic idea of the game.
  4. What rules and penalty’s would there be.
  5. What would the robots limitations be(such as weight how many cim motors yada, yada, ya)

Have fun. :smiley:

maybe like a rollercoaster theme. where youd have to go thru this whole weird track, pick things up and get to the next robot and then that robot goes to the next. the trick would be to pass the supplies you picked up by giving it to the next robot, the last robot would have to place all the parts in order on a platform higher then it.


cylindrical tupperware as pucks. 6 pucks on the field. Returned to the center similar to 2010, though with nothing to latch onto.
3 Goals at each end of the field. Only 1 robot allowed in the defensive zone.
Regolith surface. Same drivetrain wheels as 2009.
End game, last 30 seconds 2 ‘penalty’ shot pucks are allowed in play. They are worth 3 points, but can only be scored in elevated goals at each end of the ice.

I would put a SIGNIFICANT point bonus for the robot being able to use the search feature of CD better than the team that built it. (Then again, I think too many teams would get said bonus.)

And yes, there are a few potential game designs in there. There are also a number of game designs in the following subforum: FRC Game Design - Chief Delphi that haven’t been used yet.

(OK, so the thread hasn’t had any posts for a week. Just wait until all the rookies start posting the same question 47 times per day two days after Kickoff.)

Its too soon to do anything pseudo breakaway based
rich schools would just recycle their old breakaway bots, and teams (like mine) who use the parts of the previous year’s bot will have to start from scratch, i dont see it working too well

but i wouldnt put it past the GDC, who knows

I’m pretty sure this never happens. Teams may use similar designs as they have in the past due to their familiarity and relevance (233 and 330 in 2007-2011), but nobody “recycles” their old robot because their school has money to blow. If you’re discriminating against well funded teams, you’re probably thinking of teams with hard earned, longtime corporate sponsorship. It’s not like they just happened upon all that funding; rather, they most likely worked for it.

If you’re frustrated with your team’s revenue sources, then I highly recommend shameless self-promotion. Get out in your community and talk to local businesses. Every little bit of donation money counts.

Maybe even ask Bank of America or Wells Fargo! I’m sure they’re looking for any bit of good publicity they can get. :smiley:

Otherwise, please don’t make statements like that. They really aren’t necessary.

In 2011 there was a rule in place to prevent exactly this from happening. I think it was in the rulebook in 2010… and 2009… and 2008… and going back as long as I can remember. It simply states that robots may not be designed or manufactured outside of the build season (I’m paraphrasing). While the “rich” teams may seem to use similar designs that is not because they are reusing parts. It is because they are reusing ideas and improving on them. Design, you see, is iterative. Iteration requires repeating periods of innovation and evaluation. (If anyone has tips on how I could put more 'ion’s in this sentence I’d love to hear them)

I’ll butt out now.