OK… If you all remember I had predicted 2 years ago that the robots would have to hang off the floor, I got the idea after seing the robots climb the Puck pole, and low and behold we had a game where robots had to do a chin up on a bar…
Last year I predicted a teeter totter, I got this idea after seing the ramp under the chin up bar and thought what if they turn it upside down…Hmmm and again low and behold we had the ramp that teeter tottered.
Well heres an idea for this year, you need skill, stratedgy and luck…
First all perameters of the field stay the same except there are three against three robots. each three are at opposit ends.
Dividing the field is a shelving unit, 8 feet high with 6 shelves. at each end of the field are 1’ cubes painted different colors. each shelf is worth points and the higher you go the more points you get. The object of the game is to place the cubes on any of the shelves from your side. teams on the other side are doing the same. teams may not push an opponents cubes off the unit but they may steal them off the shelves and keep them in their own side for extra points.
At the start of the game the aliance will chose a secret color and hand a card to the judge. If at the end of the game the other side has taken any of your cubes that have this secret color then your team gets multiple points and the other side looses points. However you have to be careful what you steal or leave on the shelves. Blocking the shelf would also be alowed.
Moving cubes from one shelf down would be alowed.
Thats my Idea. Anyway I think it will involve cubes, Its the only shape FIRST has never used yet.
How about pyramids, right circular cylinders, cones, footballs or square disks? Can you think of a game where there is no ‘object’ to manipulate? 
Now that i think about it, your right…horizontal bar holding on in 99 then vertical bar hanging in 2000 … ramp 2000year, then an upside down ramp (2001)…thats crazy…is this the logic of first? It seems all so simple now
Well, from 1999 to 2000 to 2001, all the robots in those competition had to maintain some sort of position by the end of the matches… Wether it was holding floppies on the air, or stay on the puck, hang up on the bar, or stay balanced.
It is much more challenging and interesting for the game to challenge the robots to maintain some sort of balance, because it can be so demanding that interference from other robot can ruin the balance really easily. This add something into the game more than any objects could’ve.
So, if I am to guess what kind of game it will be for next year, I will certainly start with the final position(s) the robots have will achieve.
Two way I am going to think about this: Is Dean going to stick with the past games, or is he going to surprise everyone with some brand new challenge…
Well, if Dean’s going to stick with past years, then the robots will have to be off the floor in next year’s game. And I am going to guess that robots will be fighting for a position on top of a center structure, and try to keep themselves on there without being pushed off or tipped off.
If he is going to surprise everyone… well, sorry to say this, but there is no way for me to come up with something to surprise everyone…
So, these are just some ways I think are better when guessing the game…
Woah, here’s what crossed my mind: climbing leads to falling. We’ve all heard the old saying, what goes up must come down. I can just imagine the carnage that would occur on-field. But then we can have the Fox network do another special: When good bots have bad drivers… Ohhh, the mayhem, the destruction, the fun! Lets do it, if not for Dean, then for ourselves!
The only thing for certain is that the scoring will probably be worse, not better. Dean always promises to make it easier, but look what we got last year. Anyways, whatever happens, I’m sure it will be interesting, and more exciting to watch than 2001.
What if we have to bulid robots that have to assemble parts for this Ginger/IT thingy…
Not that would be interesting…
I can see it now…parts of ginger/IT laying all over the place…and the robot that can assemble one first wins…lol
Assembly is not such a crazy idea. What about various shaped objects which must be put into the proverbial ‘hole’ (square peg - round hole ect.) This would require the manipulation of different shapes and pick and place capabilities in your machine. The bots could also all fight for the same ‘holes’ as it were, with the different colored oblects belonging to the different teams. :eek:
Woah, here’s what crossed my mind: climbing leads to falling. We’ve all heard the old saying, what goes up must come down. I can just imagine the carnage that would occur on-field. But then we can have the Fox network do another special: When good bots have bad drivers… Ohhh, the mayhem, the destruction, the fun! Lets do it, if not for Dean, then for ourselves!
That’s funny :)… But I could definately see that happening… Just think: Robots having to hang on a bar and propel themselves SIDEWAYS in order to get to the next obstacle - something like a jungle-gym for robots to “play on”. Wow. That would be a challenge 
Let’s go!
- Katie
I had almost the exact same concept for the game this year. I figured 2v2 rather than 3v3, but the gameplay wouldn’t change.
My reasoning was as follows: Dean has openly expressed his discontent with BattleBots, et al, and FIRST has been growing increasingly intolerant of contact between competitors. Last year, in order to resolve the issue, they went with a 1-team format. Argueably, it was a failure, and there are indications FIRST is going back to a head-to-head style. My theory was 2v2, with some kind of barrier between the two alliances, like the shelving theory. Scoring would involve the barrier, but it would be physically impossible for the teams to get roughed up.
I really think this type of field is HIGHLY likely.
I do disagree with the “secret color” aspect. I think FIRST got more than an earful from competitors and spectators alike about difficulty scoring on the fly. From a spectators point of view, being kept in the dark at a sporting-type event is about the worst way to get people involved.
Whats wrong with a contact game? If you ask me, this whole idea of nobody getting physical is really a bunch of garbage. Political correctness run amuck. I would rather have a game that had competition with limited physical contact which is not intended to destroy (pre 2001) rather than a touchie feelie game like last year. Wouldn’t you rather watch football, soccer, or hockey than iceskating or polevaulting??
?? This is exactly the analogy which you have to answer for yourself. As for getting people involved in a sporting event, the worst thing you can do is have them get bored…
Mike, if your reply was addressed to me personally, then you’re preaching to the converted, my friend.
In my opinion, FIRST2000 was the most exciting competition to date. Making the highest scoring maneuver involve fitting as many machines as possible on a tiny ramp in the middle of the field at the very end of the match is just about the best thing FIRST has ever done.
FIRST2001 was downright boring.
I was being pragmatic in my original post. Regardless of whether I agree with physical contact or not (which I most definitely do), I believe FIRST is making every effort not only to deter contact, but to prevent it completely.
With that in mind, Nick’s concept seems more likely to happen than any other proposed game that involves a field where contact would be possible.
PS> I was at a NJ Devils game this weekend against Toronto, and 3 fights broke out. The entire game was VERY physical, and it ended with NJ coming back from a 0-2 start to win in overtime 3-2. I have never witnessed a better sporting event.
Yeah, talk about the little kid in the bubble… I just hope Dean and Woody weren’t inspired by the movie ‘Bubble Boy’ for the theme of this year’s event. I see it now; the pits are a clean room, the bots are housed in individual bubbles, and there are 4-foot partitions separating the 4. You have to scale the partition and grab a rose in the center of the field before the crowd wakes up. Boy, what a game!
Talking about the Devils, I think the most aggressive game of all time was in 1996. Panthers at Devils, seven fights, two concussions, one for the season. And all victors were the dudes from Jersey. final score was 2-7, Devils. Jersey pride baby! I’m Jersey born and raised, just down the hill from you, Jason, in Hackettstown, just a block from the M&M plant. By the way, when is that competition you’re hosting? We over at Tech on 57 in Washington can’t actually do anything right now, if it’s still in the future, but I’d like to come with another team member, if possible.
I think I remember that game Dan…
I also remember a game I went to back in the late 90’s, the year the San Jose Sharks came into the league. They had this guy on the team called Link Gaetz. He was one mean sonofa with a criminal record and he’d been through rehab a few times. Not 2 seconds after the puck hit the ice in the opening faceoff, Gaetz and McKay were throwing punches. Brutal game with 5 or 6 fights, but the 9-0 score made it rather boring.
The Mt. Olive Robotics Competition is this Saturday, Nov. 17th, from 9-4. The event is free, so you should definitely stop by. I’ll be running the scoring table, say hi if you decide to come.
Speaking of M&M, we’ve tried a few times to get some kind of sponsorship from them. We’ve gotten the same lame excuse every time. “We only give $$$ to medical charities.” Apparantly, NASCAR has become a medical charity because M&M sponsors a car.
Ack! 8-2 I’m committed to being at the holiday bazzar at school for VICA, and then I have to go to work at 5! Curse the fiend that caused me to be pre-committed! Maybe I can pull off that bit where you’re in two places at once… Nah, Tech and Mt. Olive are like 45 minutes apart. Curses. If it weren’t for those meddling kids… I will try to get there around 3, if that’s possible. Is it a lot of competition, or more seminar? I wouldn’t want to come in in the middle of a seminar… Can you get back to me on that?
Link? I remember Link! He was fierce! Did you see the game in 1991 where he ended the career of a Stars player (don’t remember which guy on the Stars) by shattering his jawbone and put4ting pieces of it all over the ice with just two punches? I’ve got that on video, somewhere…
Jason, whom do I write to if asking for sponsorship/engineers from BASF? Apparently, it’s solely my responsibility to get sponsors, and nobody told me about it until today. Another one of those flaws found at Tech, a lack of communication at times…
There are no seminars on Saturday. It’s a team-hosted regional, so it’s competition all day. I don’t know how the timing will work out, so I can’t say for sure if things will still be going on at 3, but it’s a possibility.
While I can’t recommend BASF as a team sponsor for selfish reasons, there are quite a few other corporations worth visiting in the area, GPU and Lucent come to mind. We’ve actually been able to raise decent funding from a multitude of different sources. Many local companies are more than willing to donate smaller amounts, but when they add up, you have a considerable pot.
5 years ago, before I was a member of Team 11, they had 1 BASF engineer. He quit the team before ship-date. No other BASF engineers have volunteered since. Our engineering staff consists of myself, a co-worker of mine (neither from BASF), one parent who is a professor at CCM, and one parent who is an electrical engineer. That’s our “staff”.
I noticed from the team list on the FIRST website that Warren Hills RHS no longer has a team. Do you know anything about that? Or maybe I’m just missing something.
Team 219 Witte Co. & Warren Hills RHS is still there, across the way from us, literally a stone’s throw. They are registered to be at Rutgers, as are we. I think they registered late, I’m not sure though. I heard they were low on funds too, but that was just from some guy and I really don’t know. But everything is fine for now.