We are less than a month from the introduction of the 2016-2017 VEX IQ Challenge!!! What do you think the game will be? Make a guess to what main object will be… What elements would you like to see in the new game … multiple bonuses? multiple size objects? Lets hear your thoughts…
I’m going prisms that need to be sorted/ stacked with a bonus area that can only be accessed by properly placing the prisms against a “roadblock” to be able to drive over/ onto it
I would like to see something that would require use of the color sensor: Like the different color objects from highrise but, unlike highrise, have it such that the color is not predefined by its physical starting position. Maybe it could be a tower of colored objects (like discs) that, once it was knocked over (which would randomize them), they need to be collected and sorted out by color, and placed into scoring spots, which if done with the colors sorted correctly would be bonus points.
Please keep in mind that the VexIQ primary purpose is to extend this program into elementary schools. This year’s challenge, even though having little too complicated rules for the kids, provided ample scoring opportunity on all levels of experience, including programming skills, and it took most of the season to reach perfect score possibility too.
If you add “manual randomness” (imagine last year’s highrise without setup crew sorting bricks), you add a lot of room for unfairness.
If you add real physical randomness (objects necessarily falling) in an attempt to engage the color sensor, you make programming basically impossible - besides the need to use the color sensor, you also lose the capability to locate the game elements. Maybe the program could just blindly swipe the field and sort them in the corner, but with that 1 minute limit, it will be more of a luck contest than programming one. Should the kit add real computer vision (my hobby project planned for the summer, not an official, legal piece) and it gets completely out of the target audience’s skills range.
What I think would be interesting challenge is if you had to manipulate the elements in a specific manner. Turning them upside down, for example, or actually to the side. That would require more of the mechanical design, which I think is still at the core of this program.
Paul has a point. A challenge that encourages the use of the color sensor, or any sensors would be good. Kids that are getting started with IQ see all these sensors, are curious, and want to master them. But they quickly find out that they don’t need to; at least not for the recent games. The only sensor they really need is the motor encoder, and the timer on the brain (if you want to call that a sensor).
Ah the million dollar question! I agree with @nenik in that based on Highrise, the color sensor could drive teams nuts so I would think that wouldnt happen. That being said, as @jrp62 says would there be a way to make having a specific sensor mandatory and a challenge that couldnt be done without it? Would be interesting for sure. With this year’s game, we felt it absolutely necessary to use a bump sensor for our large arm. I know I didnt trust our teams to have a bot like that without it. I also agree in manipulating objects meaning scoring then moving those objects to a zone for more points perhaps? I think it will be a precision based game with odd objects meaning, not a dump and run type of game. We’ve had balls (bucky and regular) and cubes. It may be time for an odd shape (as VEX did with Sack Attack in introducing bean bags) maybe a return of the VEX Round Up Rings???. Prisms were a good thought mentioned already. I also wonder when we will see scoring goals/poles/etc hooked on the field perimeter to use that as part of the field?
Given the debate over rule interpretations this year, I think I am equally interested to read the manual to see what’s legal and what isnt regarding hanging out, extending, etc. Other questions myself and fellow coaches around me have asked are: “When will we see alliance selection in IQ?” and “Will we allow more than 6 motors?”. I would be willing to bet that this game will go back to Highrise in that a perfect score/doing everything will actually be impossible.
As with every year, I will be surprised at the reveal and not be anywhere close in my prediction.
For the add it up challenge the research project theme was math and the scoring followed the Fibonacci sequence. And the scoring objects were Bucky balls, an interesting geometrical object. For highrise, the theme was engineering and the objective of the game was to build something. For bank shot the theme was science and the objective involved shooting balls and parking on an incline, both of which are very physics-y things to do.
I may just be looking for patterns that aren’t there, who knows. But next year’s theme is most likely going to be technology so my guess is that there will probably be scoring options of 1,2,4,and 8 points.
As for scoring objects, I think they will be something made for a claw rather than a scoop or intake. I doubt it will be beanbags, unless they’re firm enough to be picked up with a claw. I like the idea of something that could tip over and be harder to pick up like a cylinder or prism.
I really don’t know what else to expect, it could be anything.
- I don’t see alliance selection coming to IQ. It adds too much stress to the team.
- There’s not a good reason to add more motors.
- I don’t see a challenge design that “requires” sensors. Team members have eyes, and that will be hard to beat.
- I like that the current rules do not allow teams to build bigger robots. They are required to build smarter.
I agree the scoring objects should be able to be handled by the clawbot. Two fun ideas:
A) Cylinders. 2 inch diameter, 4 inches tall. Easy to knock over, and hard to get when laying down
B) Rings (like in Add it Up). Would be hard to pick up with a clawbot, but if they are standing up, could be fun to move.
Would also be fun to see something the robots have to balance on, like a teeter totter. But, that could be really hard to score/judge.
Steve
A game that is based on sensors is too limited in scope and a challenge in itself. So far the games and rules have been good. You can use any sensor in programming. For example, color sensor was useful in highrise in programming but not required. For teleop, sensor requirement would not serve purpose other than a “challenge”.
For all the games to date, kids were encouraged to use sensors as they see fit. Many have used at least one in every game. If not, it might be a good idea to try. For a challenge to “require” a sensor also means that the hardware should be very reliable and useful. Two of the most “touchy” sensors are color and gyro. You can find many threads on the problems with both of them via search. So using at your own risk works well.
What ever the new game is, it has been challenging for the kids. While it might seem easy, obstacles/barriers did require the kids to think and come up with solutions. We have seen some adults suggest making some changes (via field element setup that is different than in published game manual) to make it easier for something within the game to work without a problem… That might take away some of the challenge; the kids do come up with some nice solutions …
The new game is always a surprise.