Future Botball field and Game

5 replies [Last post]
Jake_Hall
Jake_Hall's picture
Title: RocketBot
Joined: 06/30/2009
Posts:
BotPoints: 197
User offline. Last seen 7 years 11 weeks ago.

This is a Botball field and game design I created that I thought would be pretty fun to use for a future competition. There are still a lot of improvements that need to be made but I think you will get the gist of what I am getting at.

PLEASE as questions or improvements that I could make to the game to make it more exciting.

Don't just view the documents and not say anything, make a post about it!

Thanks!!

AttachmentSize
Game Design.zip119.08 KB

Jake Hall
College Student

~Grand Valley State University Team Leader~
Beyond Botball: * Trinity College Robotics: * Mircomouse: * DARPA 2012:

Jeremy Rand
Jeremy Rand's picture
Title: Botball Youth Advisory Council
Joined: 04/03/2009
Posts:
BotPoints: 1168
User offline. Last seen 2 years 30 weeks ago.

Hey Jake,

Apart from the misspellings (understandable since I assume this is a first draft), I think my only major comment is that the ban on entering your opponent's area for the whole game is somewhat draconian. The 2007 and 2008 games were quite successful in this area. In 2007, it was difficult to get across, plus you could not touch the ground for the first part of the game, but some teams (I think Cedar Brook and Norman High) were able to mess with the opponent's bins early in the game, which I thought was innovative and within the spirit of Botball. In 2008, it was physically very challenging to get across, but you were encouraged to try, and could get a very big point reward (St. Mary's did this very effectively, and both Norman and Nease had good methods of quickly getting across the pit). In both games, teams were able to score points without an obscene amount of chaos, but the teams were still rewarded for innovative methods of interference.

Obviously, the 2009 game encouraged interference far too much. But I think your game takes it to the other extreme and makes D.E. too similar to seeding.

Just my thoughts. :-)

-Jeremy Rand
Senior Programmer, Team SNARC (2012-2013), Norman Advanced (2010-2011), Norman HS (2008-2009), Norman North (2005-2007), Whittier MS (2003-2004)
2012-2013 VP of Tech, 2011 President, Botball YAC (2009-2013)
Mentor, Alcott and Whittier MS

Jake_Hall
Jake_Hall's picture
Title: RocketBot
Joined: 06/30/2009
Posts:
BotPoints: 197
User offline. Last seen 7 years 11 weeks ago.

Thanks for your input, what if it were something along the lines of the '05 game? From the video I saw, opponents were able to enter in a new area after a certain amount of time, (PVC joints were lifted up to allow robots to enter opponents area.) Could after 30 seconds after the time started, robots are allowed to enter the new area?

My original thoughts of not allowing the robots to cross the lines was to keep them from crashing into each other.

Jake Hall
College Student

~Grand Valley State University Team Leader~
Beyond Botball: * Trinity College Robotics: * Mircomouse: * DARPA 2012:

Jeremy Rand
Jeremy Rand's picture
Title: Botball Youth Advisory Council
Joined: 04/03/2009
Posts:
BotPoints: 1168
User offline. Last seen 2 years 30 weeks ago.

If I recall correctly (I lost interest in Botball for most of the 2005 season due to my team having a really obnoxious mentor... ask me for details if you care), the 2005 game required judges to manually lift something, which added problems due to sloppy judges. I prefer the game board changes to not depend on a judge being smooth-handed. The 2007 volcano was a good example; triggering the mousetrap was so easy that the middle schools did it the same way as the official judges. 2008 was even better; the bots had to do it themselves, so if something failed, it was solely your bot's fault (unless the bridges were poorly constructed... but KIPR's already taken enough heat from that).

In addition, I like anti-intereference rules that can be circumvented by an innovative bot, but rarely. The examples here are the 2007 game (Cedar Brook and Norman High were able to mess with their opponent's pineapple bin at the start of the game, but it took some good strategy and engineering, and Norman High had to abandon the strategy because they didn't have it working well enough), and the 2008 game (Norman High and Nease High attempted to get a bot to the other module extremely quickly by having their Create jump into the pit, but neither team had it working as well as was required to win with the strategy). Because these circumvention methods required major skill to pull off correctly, they didn't detract from the game, and in fact encouraged innovation. The 2009 game, on the other hand, was easily dominated at Oklahoma regionals by Whittier's blocking bot that simply drove and turned a couple times in a hardcoded manner.

In conclusion, I think that the anti-interference rules should be circumventable, but should require significant skill or innovation for that circumvention to be a viable strategy.

-Jeremy Rand
Senior Programmer, Team SNARC (2012-2013), Norman Advanced (2010-2011), Norman HS (2008-2009), Norman North (2005-2007), Whittier MS (2003-2004)
2012-2013 VP of Tech, 2011 President, Botball YAC (2009-2013)
Mentor, Alcott and Whittier MS

stevenrobot
stevenrobot's picture
Title: NooBot+
Joined: 07/14/2009
Posts:
BotPoints: 16
User offline. Last seen 8 years 21 weeks ago.

This is a great start.
One problem that I see with this game is that the opponent's safe zone and zone 2 is easily blocked. This will make it very difficult for teams to score big points in double elimination. (maybe that is what you wanted) . I can see another Alcott like blocker tearing down the middle and blocking everything out. Teams will be forced to score points in the starting box, beach, and zone 1.
The sand bags should be worth more in the starting box than on the beach as this would seem harder. Botguy and the food should also be worth something (not a lot) in the starting box.
Interaction in itself was not the problem with this year's game. The problem was that it was to easy to bump into your opponent and mess him up. What won was a really dumb robot that boged down the whole game. I really liked the bridges last year because they controled the interaction. Teams knew where the asult was coming from. The bridges were just as easily blocked as crossed. Yes there will always be teams like Norman and Nease who find cleaver ways to get across like going through the pit. But that was very dificult to do. Their stategy was definetly in the spirit of botball and to be encouraged!
In seeding I think it would be ok if robots were allowed to steal the opponents resources. Is this legal the way you set the rules up?

Adam
Title: MiniBot+
Joined: 07/28/2009
Posts:
BotPoints: 74
User offline. Last seen 5 years 34 weeks ago.

I think it should be legal to steal the opponents resources, because it would punish the teams who couldn't do it effectively (but allow them to focus only on their side), and reward those who could (Los Altos was rewarded greatly in 2008).