The wonderfully useful bin, what are its origins?

I am curious to know the train of though that went into selecting this year’s game piece.

I have though about it and to me it comes down to the question of the chicken and the egg.

Was the game piece first though of as being useful?

-It has been used as a poor mans robot stand
-It has been used as a convienient chair
-It stacks away in the corner when not being used.
-You put things in it when you travel rather than trying to find a place to put the game pieces.

OR was the game piece though of as being unique

-People tossed around the idea of a cube
-The Cube had to be easy to obtain
-Etc.

Which came first in the discussion? Obviosly the conclusion was the result of the two.

What do you think?

design a game around a bin? thats like designing a game around safety goggles… they’re useful… lets make a game out of them! :wink:

hm… good idea… :smiley:

No need for a poll.

Do a search for “Wacky Warehouse” and you will find the answer.

-dave

Wow Dave, Natchez made it easy on you guys this year huh? The way he describes the game is pretty close to the way FIRST designed it. Except for obviously the ramp, details details.

You guys should have kept the room in the middle and named it “Wacky Warehouse” that’s an awesome name.

Also the 15 seconds of autonomy, and the human players having the tubs.

Hey, I think I would have used his idea too.

Dave Lavery is a man of his word.

In the thread "Ok, so YOU design the 2003 game… ":

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=35143

Dave promised that FIRST would read, discuss and consider all ideas presented in the CD forum. As a result, this year we got:

Bins, ramp, “plastic ice”, autonomy AND the elimination round winners decided by QPs rather than 2 wins out of 3 matches.

For those you don’t care for the way elimination round winners are decided (I suspect many don’t), post accordingly when FIRST asks for input for next year’s game.

*Originally posted by David Brinza ***
As a result, this year we got: Bins, ramp, “plastic ice”, autonomy AND the elimination round winners decided by QPs rather than 2 wins out of 3 matches.

For those you don’t care for the way elimination round winners are decided (I suspect many don’t), post accordingly when FIRST asks for input for next year’s game.**

Thanks for noticing!

Now, would you mind sending a copy of this to everyone that has been sending me death threats because they don’t like the elimination scoring (such as this thread), or the stacking scoring, or the alliance structure, or the game strategy, or the … etc. etc. etc.

As the Chinese say, “be careful what you wish for - you just might get it.”

-dave

p.s. all those that are so quick to jump on the teams that score well in the qualification rounds, and immediately yell “collusion!” need to recognize that from a distance “collusion” is impossible to differentiate from good, basic strategy. Just because you see something that happens to fit one model of behaviour, don’t assume it is the ONLY correct model. Don’t assume that you know a team’s motivations unless you have actually talked to them and have your facts straight.

*Originally posted by dlavery *
**

As the Chinese say, “be careful what you wish for - you just might get it.”

-dave

**

I came from Hong Kong, and I never ever heard of the phrase. Strange… Most chinese saying only have 4 words in it… Must be a fortune cookie saying.
:wink: Just messing around, dave.

All those people sending “death threats” to Dave about this year’s game… Please just step back and think about the GOOD things about this year’s game. A lot of problems like collusion and elimination points came from the teams, not FIRST. Now that you know what you DON’T like about the competition, you can help change it for next year, and make sure you go to the team forum and NOT suggest “let’s put qualifying points into the finals” AGAIN. FIRST is aware of the problems, so there’s no need hunting them down and yelling at them about it.

If the team forum is done right, and teams are organized enough to tell FIRST the same thing, the competition is only going to improve every year.

As the real chinese says, “when the old man lose his horse, how do you know it’s a bad thing?”, but most of you probably don’t know what that mean anyway. Ah well. I can tell you guys all about chinese sayings if you see me at Houston.

-Ken Leung

*Originally posted by Ken L *
"when the old man lose his horse, how do you know it’s a bad thing?"
What happened to Chinese sayings only having 4 words…? :wink: Just messin’ :slight_smile:

There will always be something about the game that someone doesn’t like (and it always seems to be a scoring issue!) This year, it’s the elimination round scoring. Last year, it was how the balls were scored. The year before, it was the crazy time multipliers … the list goes on.

Let’s just try to make the best of the week we have left! There’s always next year to make improvements.

</end_semi-rant>

Anyway, I think it’s awesome that when you look back at people’s suggestions, most were used to design this years game. Way cool. :slight_smile:

  • Katie

*Originally posted by Katie Reynolds *
**What happened to Chinese sayings only having 4 words…? :wink: Just messin’ :slight_smile:

  • Katie **

Actually Ken means four words in Chinese. Different languages are efficient in different ways. So the word count rarely matches between languages. Ken, would that be Cantonese or Mandarin or some other flavor?

Not that I could tell the difference!

Way back in the “Year of the Floppies”, Woody said “Since collusion cannot be prevented, it will henceforth be required” and thus the alliance system we all know and love was revealed to the world.

Personally, I think the brilliant thing about this game is it can be played either way.

If you want to do 4 v 0 you can do that, though you risk the scorn of some other teams at this point. It is also a VERY trusting thing to do. You are basically placing your team’s fate in the hands of three other teams and trusting them not to mess things up, accidentally or otherwise. (One would hope that any such problems are the result of an accident and not a deliberate falsehood, but people are people)

If you want to play 2 v 2, you can do that too. Though you will come out with lower QPs in the end, it is unlikely you will be “betrayed”.

There are pluses and minuses to each approach, each team must figure out which approach works best for them. On the one hand, you have trusting co-operation which is highly rewarded. But your trust may be betrayed. On the other you have dog-eat-dog competition and may the best stack destroyer win. Because that is what the game came down to here in LA. More so, I think than the other two competitions I went to, which both had open “collusion” because they were before this whole thing “blew up”.

The whole question is just one more decision in a long series of judgements your team must make. Engineering is the science of applied judgement, get used to it. As a mechanical, there are times I make design decisions by looking at a chart generated by some professional organization and determining the appropriate number. I trust it because I trust the organization not to lie to me and because “it works”. Often times there is no way to analyze the problem without the numbers from the chart. They are there because they work, not necessarily because anybody knows why they work.

Personally, I have been on both sides of this issue at various times. I am still not sure which is the “right way”, because I keep having new thoughts about it. Therefore, while I won’t make any agreements, I won’t condemn those that do.

I just thought of this today, do people who “live together” condemn those who marry? Which requires more trust? Should we scorn or condemn those who have chosen a more trusting way?

Of course there are some teams that are more trustworthy than others. Some I would consider such an agreement with because I know them to be honorable, based on their past behaviour. Others I would definitely not, again based on past behaviour, and the vast majority I don’t know enough about.

I guess which game you play depends on your model for the game. Are we businesses competing for survival? (destroy those stacks) opportunists looking for the best chance? (do what’s best at the moment) or are we a family seeking the best for each member? (build those stacks) Your choice determines how you play the game.

Which do you choose?