If YOU were the GDC...

[Joe Johnson]

TL;DR: Now that all but the World Championships are behind us what would you change about the game if you had been on the GDC could have known what you know now before Stronghold was unveiled?

All,
There are a bunch of Monday Morning Quarter Backs in the FIRST community generally, but on CD especially.

After every kickoff, there is a lot of chatter about how the GDC screwed up this or screwed up that or messed up this other thing. In fact, I can't deny that I've been one of the voices singing in that chorus some years (and I wasn't always been as gracious as I might have been -- I need to work on that).

That said, as I watched the NEF-DCMP Elims, I was pretty happy. I didn't really have a dog in the fight as the team I advise, Overclocked, didn't get drafted*. But I really enjoyed watching the matches. It was exciting. It was unpredictable. It was... fun.

I have to say that from my point of view, the GDC deserves a lot of credit.

To my eyes, the Auto Period is important but not TOO important so that the match is over before Teleop even begins (I'm looking at you Recycle Rush). The same can be said for the so called end game: Scaling is important but not the whole ball of wax. And in between, Teleop is a frenzy of activity with robots zip-zapping all around the field but even my mom could kinda tell what's going on and which alliance was getting the better of the other.

Having designed robot games myself in the past, I have to say that there is a lot that the FIRST GDC got right.

Can I complain? You bet I can! ...but I probably shouldn't.

So... ...here is my question for the Monday Morning QBs out there: Knowing what you know now, what would you change about Stronghold to make it better as a sport (better for the participants to play and/or better for the fans to watch)?

I look forward to hearing what others have to say.

Cheers,
Dr. Joe J.

P.S. It is up to you to frame your answer but if you basically define a new game from scratch, nobody is going to listen to you. Try to keep it to a few simple tweaks to the game that you think would make STRONGHOLD better not wholesale changes to turn Stronghold into, say, Soccerhold or something.

P.P.S. I'm asking you to keep this a light thread. I know, haters gonna hate (https://media.giphy.com/media/A6H1A9rhetsXK/giphy.gif), but there will be plenty of opportunities to dump on this or that aspect of FIRST after St. Louis. I just thought this would be a fun group thought experiment for us all while we make our plans for either going to St. Louis or for getting to the Championships next year if you aren't lucky enough to be able to attend this year.


*like the other 39 teams that didn't get drafted at NEF-DCMP, we felt the drafters we crazy not to notice the diamond in the rough that our team represented ;-)

[Edxu]

I think that I would remove the limitation on robot height while in your own courtyard. As it stands right now, defense as intended in the courtyard is effectively useless due to the multitude of teams with protected shots, and defense has all but entirely moved to the neutral zone.

Thematically, there's no reason why a castle's defenders would need leave the defended walls to sally out to meet the attacking force short of being sieged.

This gives teams the ability to play meaningful defense in their own courtyard, while providing another design challenge in being forced to be able to shoot at all 3 goals.

tl;dr: high goaling op, remove height restriction in own courtyard

[notmattlythgoe]

Remove the zone that is the Secret Passage and just have a single line even with the center of the defenses that the defending team is allowed to cross. I don't think it added enough to the game to warrant the extra work it adds to the refs already high workload.

[tindleroot]

Stronghold is so great that there is not much that I can say about what would need to be changed. After a bit of reflection, there are only two "flaws" in the game:

1. Due to the amount of low robots and the high limits for bumpers, it is easy for robots to end up on top of each other, or other sorts of bad situations like that.

2. Some of the defenses can get balls trapped on them effectively blocking off the defense. Namely, boulders can get stuck in the moat, under the cheval-de-frise, and in the cloth of the low goal (and if two boulders or more get stuck on the low goal, which is easy with the HP lane right there, it is nearly impossible to go through the low bar without getting penalized)

The game has very few flaws, and those it does have are from sources that are hard to find compromise from. If I were the GDC, I would try to design games that are different in challenge, but similar in nature, of Stronghold.

[Moskowapplepi]

I would change 2 things: audience selection and the spy box.
Make them pick between 2 classes and then the alliances pick one of the 2 defenses to go in slot 3
The spy box is fine but the human player I feel should have some interaction with gameplay other than signalling the drive team

[PayneTrain]

Adjust the ranking point system to either:

3 RP Win, 1 RP Tie, 0 RP Loss + 1 RP Breach, 1 RP Capture

or

2 RP Win, 1 RP Tie, 0 RP Loss + 1 RP Capture

Elim bonus remains for captures and disappears for breaches in option 2 as well

I feel like breaches de-emphasized trying to compete in matches at all events, created really weird issues when alliance partners would disable themselves on or in front of multiple defenses in shallow events, and are automatic enough at high level and elim play that there are few instances where a team would not breach but still win a match.

[Rangel(kf7fdb)]

I would make the drawbridge way easier to push down and maybe more durable so it doesn't flex as much. I understand the need to have the drawbridge in regards to design trade-offs, I just think even for tall robots, it's vastly more difficult than any of the other tasks. I probably would have made it and the sally port transparent too. At least enough to worsen vision but not completely block the area behind it.

[StAxis]

1. Change the 20 second penalty for being in the courtyard to 10 seconds. I think it would lead to a lot more on the fly strategic decision making at the end of the match to see if it was worth it to stick around or risk getting back to the batter.

2. Lessen up on the tipping. If you build a tall robot you get the benefit of blocking but you risk getting tipped or falling over defenses. It's a tradeoff that teams should be aware of.

3. Autonomous seems like it's designed to encourage a lack of risk taking and multi ball autos. I would like to see no penalties for contact in between the auto lines. I think that would encourage a lot more innovative autonomous modes.

Overall I think the GDC did a fantastic job on this game and it's been one of my favorite to design for and play.

[Drakxii]

For a better game:
First I would put a 2 inch line of (red or blue)tape down in the courtyard side in front of the outworks and if an opposing robot is touching that line they are protected from being hit. This is an addition to the bumpers in between the defense plastic dividers. If your on this line your bumpers are between the dividers. Also I would put black tape around the edge of the dividers and make the the far divider colored to aid the refs.

Stiffen the rough terrain defense with a piece a metal that went down the length of defense between the 2x2 metal tubing pieces.

Change the bumper rules to only have a 7 inch window, instead of the current 8 inch window.

To make it more fun to watch:
Instead of 6 balls in the middle of the neutral zone I would start with 3 in each of the courtyards, to encourage double/triple ball auto.

[efoote868]

Remove the rule that robots must go under the low bar.
Allow multiple defenses to be damaged in auto per robot.


Allow boulders to cross defenses without robots

[Chris is me]

Overall I think the GDC basically nailed it this year, and I disagree with a lot of the suggestions already posted for a variety of reasons that I probably shouldn't get too into lest I derail the thread. The height restriction is important, the secret passage as is was good, etc etc.

1. Make the drawbridge and sally port out of clear polycarbonate instead of opaque polycarbonate. The "extra challenge" of limited visibility isn't worth it. These make the game worse, not better. It will still be hard to see through a transparent obstacle with glare and reflections anyway.

2. Allow defensive robots to shoot balls out of their own courtyard. Right now you can hoard balls in your opponent's courtyard, and your opponent has relatively few options for dealing with those balls. If the defender is allowed to shoot those balls in the general forward direction, even all the way to their own courtyard, it allows for another kind of defense that is a lot more exciting than being a wall or pushing. The restriction on shooting from the neutral zone forward would still be there.

3. Dead robots shouldn't be able to be pushed from one zone into a protected zone and then incur penalties for being there. Not sure how to fix this in the rules but as they are written now a dead offensive robot can be pushed into the secret passage and hit repeatedly for free foul points with impunity. 228 learned this at NE Champs.

If I think of more I'll post them, but I think that's a good starting point.

[orangemoore]

Change the bumper rules to only have a 7 inch window, instead of the current 12 inch window.


Um...

BUMPERS must be located entirely within the BUMPER ZONE, which is the volume contained
between two virtual horizontal planes, 4 in. above the floor and 12 in. above the floor, in reference
to the ROBOT standing normally on a flat floor. BUMPERS do not have to be parallel to the floor.

It is only an 8 inch window with 1 inch overlap at the very worst.

[s_forbes]

MCs should have been required to wear medieval apparel and complete a course in either juggling or fire-breathing.

Everything else was pretty great.

[MaGiC_PiKaChU]

Allow hard defense, make tipping legal. No more complaining about red cards

[Drakxii]

Um...



It is only an 8 inch window with 1 inch overlap at the very worst.

Sorry remember the rule wrong, it still should be a larger overlap then 1 inch.

[northstardon]

Thematically, there's no reason why a castle's defenders would need leave the defended walls to sally out to meet the attacking force short of being sieged.

Also thematically...it used to take more than just having the entire attacking force reach the base of a tower in order to capture it. You had to scale the tower walls, and overcome obstacles like boiling oil and catapulted cows.

So, what if the tower could only be captured if strength was zero or less and at least 2 attackers scaled? Scaling is one of the most exciting aspects of the game (in my opinion) and that would have made it a more attractive design goal from the start. Basing capture on the final position of two robots, rather than all three, also lessens the penalty/pain of having one of the alliance robots lose comm, or get tipped, or get stuck in a defense.

Also might have been nice if the bars had been a little longer, making it easier for three scaling robots to fit shoulder to shoulder. But I'm guessing that was due to tower design constraints more than anything. And this is just minor stuff...this is still a great game as it stands.

[Anupam Goli]

Allow hard defense, make tipping legal. No more complaining about red cards

Yea, let's just incentivize flipping robots over when you're losing instead of on the fly strategy and smart defense. /s

[billbo911]

Honestly, I LOVE THIS GAME!!!

As an FTAA at three tournaments this year, I repeatedly saw one flaw that could have easily been remedied.
The Ball Counters in the tower work fairly well. The only failures were caused by the Corral filling up.
The flaw was that penalties for more than 6 boulders in the Castle were hardly ever called because the Ref's had to leave their station to see the problem.

The one thing I would like to have seen as a "fix" for this would have been accomplished by adding Ball Counters to the Embrasures.

This way, the FMS would only need to know how many balls were contained in the Castle at the beginning of the match. After that, FMS could keep track of how many balls were in the Castle at any time. If the number went over 6 for more than a specified amount of time, indicators could signal the failure to return balls so that the Ref's would be notified, or penalties could automatically be assigned.

Another issue I saw was with the Radios, but that horse has been flogged enough already.

[Zuelu562]

Jumping off StAxis, I would change Stronghold in the following ways:

1: Crossing the auto line on your side of the field (ie, if you are blue, crossing the auto line on the blue outer works side) becomes the point where a foul is assessed, and any significant (read not extension vs extension contact) beyond the midline is a foul.

Encourages multi-ball/using the center balls in auto, the consequences and end results of current center line penalties (usually a robot heading in the wrong direction nearly contacting an opposing robot [almost] in the outer works) are still covered.

2: Some change to the ranking point system such that wins recieve a static or static + 1 ranking points and losses receive bonuses for doing well, such as outlined earlier (my thoughts - Win: 2 points plus 1 point for Breach AND Capture. Tie score: 1 point for each alliance plus 1 for Breach AND Capture per alliance, Loss: 0 points, plus 1 for Breach, 1 for Capture. Something like that.)

This eliminates teams "Running away" with the standings that have a > 90% capture rate, and doesn't completely disincentivize winning. Week 1 you're going to see a lot of 2 to 0 or 1 RP matches, later at DCMP's you'll see 3 to 2's left, right and center.

3: Get rid of the Audience Selection. Hindsight being 20/20, seeing how many events (my experience at a Week 2, 5 and queueing at NE DCMP) quickly devolved into the same 4 audience selections coming out every time until eliminations (where we saw drastically more Drawbridge, especially come the finals), it barely made sense to have it actually be a choice.

My personal solution would be either FMS random selection from the category per match (which becomes locked in for the match the same time as the alliance selected defenses), or have the teams pick what it is from the predetermined category, but it must be in slot 3. The former option is a lot cleaner from an event perspective, but the restriction on the team's end still gives them choice from the latter.

More might come to mind, but as you can see, a lot of my thoughts on how to improve this game are complete hindsight things that even the most experienced mentors may not have been able to predict would happen given the sheer Monkey-Shakespeare quotient that FRC inherently has. I think this game has the least amount of game grinding failures certainly in my time in FIRST, and one of the fewest all time. It's certainly a game FIRST can look back on and go "How do we recreate the success of Stronghold with this game".

[IKE]

...snip...
This way, the FMS would only need to know how many balls were contained in the Castle at the beginning of the match. After that, FMS could keep track of how many balls were in the Castle at any time. If the number went over 6 for more than a specified amount of time, indicators could signal the failure to return balls so that the Ref's would be notified, or penalties could automatically be assigned.
...snip...

DOGMA...

I like the warning, but please no automated penalties....

[PayneTrain]

DOGMA...

I like the warning, but please no automated penalties....

I think not having automated penalties but instead having a light or something show up on the field to notify the referees of a potential issue would work.

[Billfred]

We played early, and there were two very different games--we didn't shoot a single ball at Palmetto or Orlando because everyone was hellbent on breaching.

As such: No extra ranking points for breach or capture, just score the 20/25. That may not be the vibe I'd have if we played later in the season, but that's what I'm going with. :)

[Andy A.]

I think this years game was pretty good. At the very least it had a narrative and a flow to it that many games have lacked, and that made it easier to explain to spectators. I only have a few quibbles, and they really are quibbles with the benefit of hindsight. All the same;

Visibility. The drawbridge, portcullis and sally port were simply too hard to see around, over or through. The drawbridge didn't need to be that tall or opaque and the sallyport didn't need to be opaque at all. The portcullis is alright, but it's still huge.

Other things that were transparent would have benefited from some tinting or other way to help make them visible; the dividers on the batter are nigh on impossible to see from across the field. I know that the GDC said that visibility was part of the challenge, but that strikes me as retconning. There's no way they set out to make a game that obstructed driver visibility so much on purpose. They wanted a draw bridge that looked like a draw bridge and only after they got it did notice what it did to visibility.

The secret passage was probably not a great idea. I get what they were trying to do, but what it turned into was just a way for more fouls to get incurred. It seems like the GDC frequently creates these sorts of 'protected' alleys that require piles of rules to make work. I'm not sure what the better solution would have been.

Those are really the only issues that stood out in my mind. Other things, like refs unevenly calling penalties for flipping or whatever, apply to all games in FIRST.

[wazateer1]

One thing I am really curious about is whether the GDC intended the boulders to be able to get stuck in so many ways. Obviously they get stuck on/under/in robots, but they can interfere with crosses in so many ways that the game would be different if they were bigger to avoid just that.

Low Bar: Even before the change, boulders still could have gotten stuck here, but with the new fabric you almost always risk a G38 if you are carrying another ball.

Cheval De Frise: The balls seem to be the perfect diameter and compress-ability for getting stuck under this

Rock Wall: Woe to those who try to cross the rock wall if a sneaky boulder is hiding on the flat of the defense, but behind the wall. Only a little bit will peek over, but the colors are so similar that a driver in a high intensity situation will probably not notice. A robot not trying to Dukes-of-Stronghold the defense will inevitably get stuck.

Moat: The moat is a little bit better then the rock wall, because you can see the boulder, but that doesn't mean the defense isn't much harder then it was without the boulder. (Making the boulder bigger wouldn't help here, but it is just another instance of the boulders interfering)

Drawbridge / Sally Port: Not seeing the boulder, not seeing your robot, getting stuck, and not knowing anything is wrong while you continue to try to open these defenses (from behind, of course, the most popular way) takes a lot of time. Especially when you already think it is going to take a lot of time and don't question whether you are stuck until you fail to open the door multiple times. The hard part is the boulders don't make much of a difference in your robots tippyness, they just keep the wheels off the ground.

It seems like if the boulders were bigger, or the rules were changed so you could "hold" one ball and "herd" another, a lot of these issues would have been avoided.

Also, I would have removed the brattice. I don't know about anyone elses experience, but I haven't seen it used once.

[Doug Frisk]

Yea, let's just incentivize flipping robots over when you're losing instead of on the fly strategy and smart defense. /s

Eh. Build a robot that doesn't tip. There are bumpers, contact between robots was intended as part of the game. Building a robot that's a bowling ball on top of a stick isn't (or shouldn't be) a good design.

[notmattlythgoe]

Eh. Build a robot that doesn't tip. There are bumpers, contact between robots was intended as part of the game. Building a robot that's a bowling ball on top of a stick isn't (or shouldn't be) a good design.

There is a difference between building a robot that is difficult to tip over and removing tipping violations that allow robots to actively attempt to tip other robots (ex. a ramp specifically for tipping).

Even building a short robot does not mean that you won't get tipped, look at 836.

[Breakaway3937]

I think a unique challenge to the design phase early in the season would have been to allow robots to manipulate and hold up to three boulders. Then, you would have had a lot less low bars capable robots and a lot more variation in design and height. Of course, you would have to add more boulders to the game in order to counteract the choke hold strategy that would exist. Number of boulders to take down the tower would need to go up as well.

[aldaeron]

I feel like there was not enough of an incentive to be a tall bot or to do all 5 defenses. Not exactly sure how to fix that.

General suggestion for most games: Change how elims work compared with quals. Make the match 30-60 seconds longer and up the difficulty of the game (i.e. up starting tower strength to 12, but give 45 more seconds). Maybe it inches up as you go into semis and then into finals. The alliances in elims are a different than quals since they were chosen to be cohesive teams. Throw them a little more of a curve ball.

Specific to Stronghold

I would add a 10 point bonus for damaging all 5 defenses in quals and up it to 20 in elims (keep the 1 RP and 20 point bonuses as is). This gives an incentive to do the Category C defenses in elims while you are scrambling to get around the defender to get balls in to weaken the tower. It also may make you choose between getting all 5 defenses and playing active defense in your courtyard. Being a taller bot helps with the Category C defenses so maybe this helps that angle.


I would also allow two balls to be carried instead of one with the starting tower strength doubled to 16. Robots could start with 2 balls. This would allow for some correction if you shoot one ball and miss. It seemed like a lot of robots spent a lot of time lining up only to miss then go chase the ball. This might require changing point values a little so that breaching points and shooting points are more in line (I liked seeing these two activities worth similar points). I think there should also be a way for defenders to "clear" balls from their court yard. Perhaps allow a defender to control as many balls as they want (i.e. push all missed shots into their own secret passage or carry 4 balls or something)


Color the dividers on the batter so they are easier to see. Maybe tape on the outer edges or something. Lots of unnecessary collisions with those clear shields.

Make the tall defenses clear wherever possible (especially the drawbridge)

No more camera poles

Allow driver station to be clamped down (C clamp should be built into driver station IMO).

Overall a very good game.

Big tangent (maybe should be separate thread): If FIRST worked out a Stronghold like game with a set of obstacles and a game piece shot into a goal and changed the details of the defenses and the game pieces and goals every year, could FIRST become more of a traditional spectator sport?

-matto-

[Doug Frisk]

There is a difference between building a robot that is difficult to tip over and removing tipping violations that allow robots to actively attempt to tip other robots (ex. a ramp specifically for tipping).

Even building a short robot does not mean that you won't get tipped, look at 836.

Building a tall robot doesn't mean you'll be tipped either. There are plenty of examples where it seems the intent was to jostle a robot to mess with its aim, but the robot tipped.

[Hitchhiker 42]

Also, I would have removed the brattice. I don't know about anyone elses experience, but I haven't seen it used once.

195 at the Hartford District event used it. I'm not sure why, but it was really interesting seeing them pick up from something not many have done. Maybe for proof of concept?

[MikLast]

MCs should have been required to wear medieval apparel and complete a course in either juggling or fire-breathing.

Everything else was pretty great.

PNW has you covered (https://www.youtube.com/user/FIRSTWAVideo/videos)

[Duncan Macdonald]

Not specific to Stronghold but I'd allow playoff alliances to have the option of choosing which team they would like in each driver's station for sight-line reasons.

This should a be relatively trivial addition since championship alliances can already choose which teams they use on a match by match basis.

[MooreteP]

DOGMA...

I like the warning, but please no automated penalties....
I think it was called DAWGMA.


Also, I would have removed the brattice. I don't know about anyone elses experience, but I haven't seen it used once.

195 at the Hartford District event used it. I'm not sure why, but it was really interesting seeing them pick up from something not many have done. Maybe for proof of concept?
They used it because their intake mechanism was damaged.
This was the only way that they could still load boulders into their Robot.
They said that they had used this workaround before.
As I noted in my GA commentary, I had never seen it used before. I referred to the Brattice as the Litter (noodle) Chute of 2016. Rarely used, but in a pinch....

Not specific to Stronghold but I'd allow elimination alliances to have the option of choosing which team they would like in each driver's station for sight-line reasons.

It's Playoffs, not Elims, or Eliminations.
Also, it's Worlds or the CMP, not Nationals.
(Sorry, just something that my OCD has issues with)

[TheBoulderite]

I would create the game so that one of the field volunteers must don a dragon costume and run around on the field during the match. In order to slay the dragon, alliances must hit the dragon with a boulder eight times. They can cooperate to do so. After the eighth boulder, the dragon must fall down on the field and the alliances must race to drive to the fallen dragon and play defense to prevent the other alliance from taking the dragon. At the end of the match, whichever alliance is closer to the dragon will receive either 4 RPs in qualifications or 50 points in eliminations.

[Josh Fox]

I think it was called DAWGMA.

DOGMA - "Delay of Game Management Algorithm"

Thanks to team 604 for hosting the 2010 game manual (http://www.604robotics.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/2010-FRC-Manual_Complete_06April2010.pdf).

[jvriezen]

Sorry remember the rule wrong, it still should be a larger overlap then 1 inch.

Since bumpers are 5" +- 1/2", two bots with 4.5" bumpers placed high/low respectively could have 0" of overlap.

[techhelpbb]

Animatronic dragon with pyrotechnics.

[MooreteP]

http://i.imgur.com/NnmA1A3l.jpg

[MooreteP]

DOGMA - "Delay of Game Management Algorithm"

Sorry, confused by Lil Lavery. :-)

[CloakAndDagger]

Building a tall robot doesn't mean you'll be tipped either. There are plenty of examples where it seems the intent was to jostle a robot to mess with its aim, but the robot tipped.


What would your opinion be on the flip in this video then?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cReB8jw-ccI
We were defending them too hard, and as a result as soon as one robot drove underneath our bumpers and got us up, they both kept hitting us until 3536 made a concerted effort, and we fell over. This was not a result of us being too top heavy, or accidental hits from opponents, but a clear, sustained effort to flip and incapacitate our robot, which irreparably bent our arm, requiring us to punch a new one out before worlds.
I say that it was intentional not only because of what the video shows, but also one of the FTA's claims to have heard their drive coach yelling "Flip them".
We are lucky enough to have great sponsors, one of those being Russels Technical Products, who allows us to get custom-made aluminum and steel parts for reduced prices, but imagine if this had been a new team. Our traveling costs for St Louis are nuts, as are many other team's, and new teams or teams with less sponsors could very well have been permanently crippled because of lack of funds to both make it to competition and make new parts. And you want to make it legal to flip.

This was not an accident, not a misunderstanding, and not in the spirit of FIRST, and it should not be permitted.

[Road Rash]

This being the first game I've been exposed to, I wouldn't change a thing. That being said, I like reading the opinions in this thread.

[gafftron]

Not specific to Stronghold but I'd allow playoff alliances to have the option of choosing which team they would like in each driver's station for sight-line reasons.

This should a be relatively trivial addition since championship alliances can already choose which teams they use on a match by match basis.

This was the case in 2014 so I'm surprised that they have removed that ability.

[cbale2000]

I like most of the ideas people have posted so far, here's a few of mine:


Remove the limitation on how many balls robots can carry, and have more balls available on the field (see 2006)
Remove the limitation on how many balls can be crossed over the defenses at once.
Limit the bumper-zone range more to prevent wedge/tipping situations while flat on the ground with normal bumper contact.
Allow attackers to shoot balls from the neutral zone (I have mixed feelings about what this would do to gameplay, but it might be interesting; perhaps just limit shooting in the zone to "passing" balls over defenses, but don't allow them to be scored directly from the neutral zone.)
Add a defender starting position in each teams secret passage and allow defensive autonomous (maintain existing rules protecting robots crossing defenses though)


What would your opinion be on the flip in this video then?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cReB8jw-ccI
We were defending them too hard, and as a result as soon as one robot drove underneath our bumpers and got us up, they both kept hitting us until 3536 made a concerted effort, and we fell over. This was not a result of us being too top heavy, or accidental hits from opponents, but a clear, sustained effort to flip and incapacitate our robot, which irreparably bent our arm, requiring us to punch a new one out before worlds.

This is probably the first video I've seen this season that was clearly an intentional tip deserving of a red card. This is the sort of thing that should be penalized, however, there are also many instances of accidental tipping that are penalized far too harshly.
I can understand a foul and maybe a yellow card as a warning to the team, but an automatic red card for a momentary contact tip is overkill. This video is an example of the standard that should be applied to red cards for tipping IMO.

[DanKein]

In order to achieve a breach, there should be two options: 1. cross 4 of the defenses 3 times. 2. cross 5 of the defenses 2 times.
This would incentivize the crossing of a difficult defense.

I also like the idea of a defending robot in their courtyard to be able to shoot balls out of the courtyard. I think this adds more than it detracts.

I think there is a difference between running over a ball and controlling a ball. Penalties being called for running over a ball while controlling one, don't make the game better. Yes, this may allow the occasional ball to enter under the low bar. However, herding or pushing a ball under the low bar, or a strategy of a human player jamming up a low bar should be penalized.

I also think the tower strength should increase from qualifications to eliminations, and with each level of eliminations.

[axiomofdarkness]

Also, I would have removed the brattice. I don't know about anyone elses experience, but I haven't seen it used once.

I know there's at least one team in MAR who feeds exclusively from the brattice, though I forget which team it is.

[Joe Johnson]

I know there's at least one team in MAR who feeds exclusively from the brattice, though I forget which team it is.

Honestly, I had forgotten what the heck the brattice even was and had to look it up in the manual to refresh my memory.

Man, I AM getting old...

Dr. Joe J.

[thatprogrammer]

I would've removed audience selection. Also I'll echo the thoughts that the Sally and the Drawbridge should've been transparent. Honestly. this game has been absolutely amazing!

[RoboMom]

I am on the volunteer recruitment and management side of things. The role of field reset was very labor intensive this season, both in actual numbers needed as well as how hard it was physically. I know these factors led to delays at some events. I wish there had been a bit more recognition of this up front.

[Lil' Lavery]

Some of this will be rehased from Chris is Me, Andy A, and a couple other brilliant posters in this thread, but I feel like adding my reasoning to a couple of these points.

1. Make the Sally Port and Drawbridge semi-transparent
I know the "wood" aesthetic was part of the game's aesthetic, and that the vision challenges are technically interesting. However, I feel the consequences outweigh the benefits. Seeing drive teams miss balls, commit fouls, and general struggle across blind spots does not make for a great spectator experience. Further still, it makes the referees' job harder in determining crossings. A visual design similar to the Portcullis would have been sufficient in conveying the medieval theme, while also allowing enough vision not to hamper the game.

2. Make the batter dividers semi-visible
Ironically, the batter dividers are quite the opposite of the sally port and drawbridge. If they had a colored edge or other means of identifying their position, it would have greatly assisted drive teams without any real consequence elsewhere.

3. Add a dedicated scorekeeper
While this isn't strictly a GDC issue, it does tie in. Refs shouldn't have to pull double duty as scorekeepers

4. Clarify the secret passage rules
I wouldn't necessarily change anything about the actual functionality regarding the secret passage, but raise your hand if you understood how the secret passage functioned the first time you read the game manual. How about the second time? It took most everyone a while, and there were plenty of teams that didn't really understand its function at the events (particularly when it comes to passing balls in and out of each passage). I believe I saw a suggestion during build season to change the portion of the secret passage that touches the neutral zone to "secret entrance." A change similar to that could have provided additional clarity.

5. Change the game from "tower defense" to "tower assault"
Once again, a semantic change to the rules that would have provided a lot of clarity regarding FMS graphics, whos courtyard is whos, etc.

6. Have the breach/capture serve as tie-breakers during qualifications.
In the case of a tie, if one alliance garnered a breach or capture while the other alliance did not, that alliance is named the winner. It's only a tie if both alliances had the same amount of additional ranking points.

7. Allow the referees to keep notes on matches/allow announcers to relay which penalties were committed
This was the most infuriating and confusing change on the year. I honestly don't understand it at all.


And now for some weird ideas to try at your off-season (FMS permitting):

1. Allow alliances to opt not to place a defense in a location, in exchange for additional tower strength on their tower. Any defense skipped already counts as damaged (both for point and breach purposes). Replace the missing defense with a flat panel* to prevent damage to the outerworks.

*Or the low bar panel without the low bar inserted

2. Add in 2 "flaming boulders" (orange balls) to the center of the field at the beginning of the match. These boulders are either worth 5 points each time they're score, and/or end up doing 2 damage to the tower they're scored in.

3. Add in a "hot goal" in autonomous (basically like 2014). Allow the low goal to be hot for extra fun.

I think it was called DAWGMA.
I'll have you know that 1712 never once committed a DOGMA penalty, TYVM. :mad:

:p

[Hitchhiker 42]

I would've removed audience selection. Also I'll echo the thoughts that the Sally and the Drawbridge should've been transparent. Honestly. this game has been absolutely amazing!

Seems like towards the later competitions, sally, cheval, etc. were consistently chosen (to prevent walls in front of the drive team). Except in the finals, when everyone wanted the hard defenses. :)
I'm not sure what I'd do to amend this, but make it so the drawbridge and portcullis do get chosen more often.

[Hitchhiker 42]

We all know that if we were the GDC, we'd have had a water game by now. Don't tease us FIRST.

The moat is the closest we've gotten.

[3072Cap]

Be able to shoot from the neutral zone.

[EricH]

Reverse the opening side of the Sally Port. As in, instead of the hinge being on the attacker's left, put it on the attacker's right.

Any refs out there know how hard that door is to see a crossing on if you're on the outerworks position...

[jajabinx124]

Be able to shoot from the neutral zone.

Full court shooting from your own secret passage. I mean.. that's what the brattice is for right? ;)

[GeeTwo]

Caveat: before any edits, this is all based on reading only OP, not any follow-up posts. At the risk of redundancy, let me plow ahead:


After the one-dimensional challenge of Aerial Assist and the snoozer that was Recycle Rush, the bar was pretty low - and the GDC capitalized on that both literally and figuratively. (B'dup bup psssh)
This was absolutely the best engineering challenge in my 4-1/2 years, and appears to be on the short list going all the way back to 1992. The low bar and the climb work against each other. High goal vs low goal is a real design question. Teams can earn exactly as many non-competitive ranking points as they can in competitive ranking points, giving the challenge both a "solid floor" as well as an "open ceiling".
Most of the good games are based on a current olympic, professional, or varsity sport. Stronghold was NOT. This makes it even more impressive that someone who walked in off the street could "get it" in fifty words: "You score a breach point by crossing four of those five defenses going towards the tower twice each, and a Tower capture point for putting eight boulders in the tower goals and getting three robots on the platform. Two more points for doing these things BETTER than the other alliance."
To find negative issues, I have to intentionally look for them. Most of them were handled in team updates; the remainder basically come down to inconsistent foul calls across events.


I definitely give the GDC an "A" this year.

[Mitchell1714]

Stronghold has been a very good game, but there are some tweaks I would make.

1. The scoring bar at the bottom quarter of the match feed should have been done differently. They should have had team numbers, score, defenses that alliance has breached and damage they have done to their opponents tower all on the same side. It was confusing and counter-intuitive to see red teams and red score on one side, and red defense/boulder count on the other.

2. (Spoiler, reading, fairly complicated change to game-play)

During just the playoffs, there should have been 2 new defenses available for selection: the "field" and the "keep".

What are they?

The "field" as it's name suggests is just a green flat surface robots drive across. Robots cannot damage the "field" and receive no points or contribution to a breach for crossing the "field" in both auto and teleop. The "keep" in historical terms, is the fortified central tower of a castle and last defensive resort. The "keep" in FRC Stronghold is a tall tower defense, place in the outer works, that is illegal to cross.

How do these two defenses work?

After each alliance has placed all their defenses, and before robots are placed on the field, each alliance then gets to place either a "field" for them to cross, or a "keep" to slow down the opposing alliance. Each alliance can place a "field" or "keep" on any defense except another "keep", "field" or low bar. There can be BOTH a "keep" and a "field" in the same outer works. If this happens, that alliance will only be able to damage 3 defenses, and will NOT have the possibility of scoring the Breach bonus(20pts). The red alliance gets to place first, then blue.

Why do I think it's a good idea?

One word, STRATEGY! This would make Stronghold playoffs the most strategically deep game in a while. This would affect many parts of the game:

A. Selecting defenses- Game theory now comes into play more as you have to guess if the other alliance is going to help themselves or slow you. The red alliance has the advantage of placing their "field/keep" anywhere and potentially blocking the other alliance from putting the opposite defense in that spot. High seeded red alliances must also determine if faster crossing is worth the possibility of no breach. Blue has the advantage of knowing what and where the red alliance placed their "field/keep" and countering, either as offense or defense.

B. Auto- The "field" increases an alliances auto possibilities. 2-ball autos and 2-ball-not-low-bar autos would be much more common. It also increases the chance of an alliance doing a double 2-ball auto. The "keep" hinders your opponents auto possibilities. A "keep" can be used to replace easily crossed defenses. It can be used to force opposing alliance robots to line up next to each other and risk messing up a 20 point auto. More importantly, the "keep" can force 1 of the 3 opposing bots to cross an active defense.

C. Teleop- The quick crossing of the "field" to increase shot count is huge. Two top tier shooters and alliances of 3 pretty good shooters could gain a big advantage. I could see some 1 and 2 alliances picking it even though the opponent could give them a "keep" and ruling out the possibility of the breach bonus. Top shooting alliances could more than make up for the 20 point breech deficit by shooting more boulders in auto and more cycles in teleop.

D. Endgame- The only way this affects endgame is the "field" can make last second rushes to the batter faster.

I know its kind of a complicated idea, thoughts, comments?

[dirtbikerxz]

a dead offensive robot can be pushed into the secret passage and hit repeatedly for free foul points with impunity. 228 learned this at NE Champs.

Oh god, can you tell me what match etc. so i can look up the youtube video. Or if you know the link to the video can you just post it, :D

[logank013]

I've said this since week 3 to my team mates but we'll see how others feel about this. I'd change the ranking point system slightly. This years ranking system was far better than just W-L-T, but it still caused some problems in Indiana in my opinion. Breaching became the guaranteed point for every match (only missed a few times in quals at IN DCMP). Capturing happened 79 out of 124 possible times (63.7%) at IN DCMP too. Much of the ranking system became a who has the best schedule (who can win the most) and caused some odd results.

Adding onto my issues with the ranking system, I thought we should add in the component of winning margin somehow. Odds are, the team that wins every match by 40 points is probably better than the robot that barely wins every match. A solution one of my team members had was adding another RP for every 30 points you won by (not joint, per match.). So if you won your match by 60 points, you added 2 more ranking points. If you won two matches by 45 points, you would not add the winning margins together to get 3 more RPs. It would be only 2 since each happened in a different match.

Finally, I think to get the capture ranking point, only your robot has to be on the batter. So in quals, if your tower strength was at 0 or less, you'd get the capture RP by your robot on the batter. So if in a match, an alliance wins and gets the breach, that is 3 RPs. The fourth RP gets added if your robot is on the batter. So if team A and Team B are on the batter and Team C rolls off, Team A and B would get 4 RPs for that match while Team C got 3 RPs for the match instead of all three teams getting only 3 RPs. This would not change anything for elims. You only get the 25 points if all three robots are on the batter at the end.

[dirtbikerxz]

A solution one of my team members had was adding another RP for every 30 points you won by (not joint, per match.). So if you won your match by 60 points, you added 2 more ranking points.

But this goes against ur complaint of teams just having lucky match schedules. What if a barely okay alliance went up against a super crappy alliance and won by 60 points. Does that mean they are a good alliance?

[logank013]

But this goes against ur complaint of teams just having lucky match schedules. What if a barely okay alliance went up against a super crappy alliance and won by 60 points. Does that mean they are a good alliance?

I definitely see your point but that is a one time scenario. The point of the winning margin RPs would be for teams that consistently win by 30 points or more. So say we stuck 2056 in a competition with a bunch of teams that can't even shoot a boulder. Then the teams paired with 2056 who would win by at least 60 points a match would have a 1 time 2 RP bonus where 2056 would have a 10 time 2 RP bonus. Does that make sense? So schedule would still factor into this but the teams that are consistently better than the rest of the field should still end up at the top of the field by earning those extra winning margin RPs. Does that make sense?

[dirtbikerxz]

I definitely see your point but that is a one time scenario. The point of the winning margin RPs would be for teams that consistently win by 30 points or more. So say we stuck 2056 in a competition with a bunch of teams that can't even shoot a boulder. Then the teams paired with 2056 who would win by at least 60 points a match would have a 1 time 2 RP bonus where 2056 would have a 10 time 2 RP bonus. Does that make sense? So schedule would still factor into this but the teams that are consistently better than the rest of the field should still end up at the top of the field by earning those extra winning margin RPs. Does that make sense?

It makes sense, but in that case, if you stuck a crappy bot with 2056 (with the current system) ya they will get 4 ranking points that one match, but in most of their other matches they will only get 1 max, where as 2056 will get consistent 4 ranking points.

[EricH]

When strength-of-schedule is used as ranking, or to affect gameplay, life gets extremely interesting.

Witness: 2010's coopertition bonus.
Witness: 2009's G14 (loss of ability to score some number of points).

And FIRST has never used the difference in score to give blowouts a boost. They've preferred close matches.

[logank013]

It makes sense, but in that case, if you stuck a crappy bot with 2056 (with the current system) ya they will get 4 ranking points that one match, but in most of their other matches they will only get 1 max, where as 2056 will get consistent 4 ranking points.

In the current ranking system, getting 4 Rps is an easy thing to do in IN if you have the win. So getting extra ranking points based on margin would encourage more high goals than low goals. Maybe if we changed this to every 5 more high goals your alliance gets over the other alliance per match will earn you 1 more ranking point. I feel like it effectively does the same thing as the winning margin but is a little different.

I think the point I was trying to get to by adding in winning margin was to have more matches that had 6 to 2 ranking points rather than capping at 4 to 2. It makes scoring much more important. A team like 1024 who is amazing had issues with their W-L-T record hurting their rank at their IN events. In many of the wins, they could have boosted their rank by having winning margin involved. Does this still make any sense or am I just beating a dead horse at this point? Thanks for the feedback ;)

[dirtbikerxz]

In the current ranking system, getting 4 Rps is an easy thing to do in IN if you have the win. ... Does this still make any sense or am I just beating a dead horse at this point? Thanks for the feedback ;)

No it makes sense :) . And ya I get what your saying. Something like this will have to be regulated on a event to event basis though. I understand how this can be useful at IN, but if this was done at a event like Bayou, than the entire system would just crash and burn...epicly. :D

[logank013]

No it makes sense :) . And ya I get what your saying. Something like this will have to be regulated on a event to event basis though. I understand how this can be useful at IN, but if this was done at a event like Bayou, than the entire system would just crash and burn...epicly. :D

Yeah. Agreed entirely. I don't know how accurate it is but I like to think Indiana is one of the best regions this year. Because of this, RPs really came down to W-L-T in many cases because the other two RPs were fairly evenly distributed across the board. But obviously in an area where teams are still struggling to breach, then the current system probably has no issues.

[Joe Johnson]

Stronghold has been a very good game, but there are some tweaks I would make.

1. The scoring bar at the bottom quarter of the match feed should have been done differently. They should have had team numbers, score, defenses that alliance has breached and damage they have done to their opponents tower all on the same side. It was confusing and counter-intuitive to see red teams and red score on one side, and red defense/boulder count on the other.

2. (Spoiler, reading, fairly complicated change to game-play)

During just the playoffs, there should have been 2 new defenses available for selection: the "field" and the "keep".

What are they?

The "field" as it's name suggests is just a green flat surface robots drive across. Robots cannot damage the "field" and receive no points or contribution to a breach for crossing the "field" in both auto and teleop. The "keep" in historical terms, is the fortified central tower of a castle and last defensive resort. The "keep" in FRC Stronghold is a tall tower defense, place in the outer works, that is illegal to cross.

How do these two defenses work?

After each alliance has placed all their defenses, and before robots are placed on the field, each alliance then gets to place either a "field" for them to cross, or a "keep" to slow down the opposing alliance. Each alliance can place a "field" or "keep" on any defense except another "keep", "field" or low bar. There can be BOTH a "keep" and a "field" in the same outer works. If this happens, that alliance will only be able to damage 3 defenses, and will NOT have the possibility of scoring the Breach bonus(20pts). The red alliance gets to place first, then blue.

Why do I think it's a good idea?

One word, STRATEGY! This would make Stronghold playoffs the most strategically deep game in a while. This would affect many parts of the game:

A. Selecting defenses- Game theory now comes into play more as you have to guess if the other alliance is going to help themselves or slow you. The red alliance has the advantage of placing their "field/keep" anywhere and potentially blocking the other alliance from putting the opposite defense in that spot. High seeded red alliances must also determine if faster crossing is worth the possibility of no breach. Blue has the advantage of knowing what and where the red alliance placed their "field/keep" and countering, either as offense or defense.

B. Auto- The "field" increases an alliances auto possibilities. 2-ball autos and 2-ball-not-low-bar autos would be much more common. It also increases the chance of an alliance doing a double 2-ball auto. The "keep" hinders your opponents auto possibilities. A "keep" can be used to replace easily crossed defenses. It can be used to force opposing alliance robots to line up next to each other and risk messing up a 20 point auto. More importantly, the "keep" can force 1 of the 3 opposing bots to cross an active defense.

C. Teleop- The quick crossing of the "field" to increase shot count is huge. Two top tier shooters and alliances of 3 pretty good shooters could gain a big advantage. I could see some 1 and 2 alliances picking it even though the opponent could give them a "keep" and ruling out the possibility of the breach bonus. Top shooting alliances could more than make up for the 20 point breech deficit by shooting more boulders in auto and more cycles in teleop.

D. Endgame- The only way this affects endgame is the "field" can make last second rushes to the batter faster.

I know its kind of a complicated idea, thoughts, comments?

In theory, I like the game theory addition but I think in practice it has significant drawbacks.

First, it adds to the complexity of an already pretty complex to explain game (GeeToo's 50 word explanation above not withstanding).

Second, it adds to the fun for super fans but doesn't confuses the snot out of the causual fan (explain again why does that team get a free pass and also an impregnable defense?).

Third, if you don't actually set up the defenses and then then change them to Fields and Keeps after the fact, the strategy is pretty much going to be lost on anyone but the drive teams of those involved, but if you do that, an already crazy cycle time gets even longer.

Finally, I am worried how things work in practice. Have we opened up a hole that lets folks break the game by enabling strategy that wins every time.

But... ...I wouldn't mind trying this out at an afterglow competition if one of them decided that they wanted give it a go.

Nice post.

Dr. Joe J.

[CJ_Elliott]

Full court shots from human player in last 20 seconds.

[Whatever]

I would have moved the tower strength to 11 (instead of 10) for Worlds.

[bdaroz]

I would have moved the tower strength to 11 (instead of 10) for Worlds.

Because it's one louda?

Sorry, couldn't resist.... :D

[Peyton Yeung]

I would have moved the tower strength to 11 (instead of 10) for Worlds.

Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?

[notmattlythgoe]

Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xgx4k83zzc

[Joe Johnson]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xgx4k83zzc

Make it loud indeed.

[Road Rash]

I approve the last 4 posts. :D

[plnyyanks]

Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?

We can do better!

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/spinal_tap_amps.png (https://xkcd.com/670/)

[Zebra_Fact_Man]

Well, since you asked...

I would have replaced the boulders with totes, the outer defenses with scoring platforms, and the midline with a step.
That's right, more Recycle Rush!!! Most exciting game ever!

jk - I think I would rather watch grass grow.

[Louisiana Jones]

As it stands right now, defense as intended in the courtyard is effectively useless due to the multitude of teams with protected shots, and defense has all but entirely moved to the neutral zone.



While many teams shots might not be blockable, those tall opaque robots might happen to block many teams vision tracking systems. Most of the systems are mounted down low, so maybe courtyard defenders won't be entirely useless?

[Edxu]

While many teams shots might not be blockable, those tall opaque robots might happen to block many teams vision tracking systems. Most of the systems are mounted down low, so maybe courtyard defenders won't be entirely useless?

I mean you're technically right, but if your tall opaque robot was previously a short, defense-crossing robot and you cheesecaked on a wall, you might run the issue of being called for purposely obstructing their vision from R9C.

IIRC, most refs will tend to favor the offensive robot in those calls, and your alliance risks failing inspection if the RI believes that your blocker exists for more than boulder blocking.

[efoote868]

I mean you're technically right, but if your tall opaque robot was previously a short, defense-crossing robot and you cheesecaked on a wall, you might run the issue of being called for purposely obstructing their vision from R9C.

IIRC, most refs will tend to favor the offensive robot in those calls, and your alliance risks failing inspection if the RI believes that your blocker exists for more than boulder blocking.

From the Q&A and related discussion, my understanding was that if your blocker exists for blocking shots, the cheesecaked wall would be perfectly legal.
If the cheesecake wall exists singularly to block/interfere with cameras, it wouldn't be allowed.



EDIT-
To get this post back on topic, If I were the GDC I would eliminate rules based on intent. Things either happen or they don't, but there's quite a bit that we didn't mean to do.

[Edxu]

From the Q&A and related discussion, my understanding was that if your blocker exists for blocking shots, the cheesecaked wall would be perfectly legal.
If the cheesecake wall exists singularly to block/interfere with cameras, it wouldn't be allowed.



Your interpretation is correct, but how do you create the line between an expansive shot blocker and a wall to block cameras?

If I was to grab a 4'x4' sheet of black fabric and create a frame for it such that it widened my blocking wall for boulders, I could make the argument that its purpose is to increase blocking surface area, but the opposing alliance could claim that your ulterior motive is to mess with their camera.

[Louisiana Jones]

Your interpretation is correct, but how do you create the line between an expansive shot blocker and a wall to block cameras?

If I was to grab a 4'x4' sheet of black fabric and create a frame for it such that it widened my blocking wall for boulders, I could make the argument that its purpose is to increase blocking surface area, but the opposing alliance could claim that your ulterior motive is to mess with their camera.

From the Q&A

A. A device which is not specifically intended to interfere with the remote sensing capabilities of another ROBOT, but merely happens to be in the way of that ROBOT sensing a desired object, while intended for other functions(such as blocking shots), would not be a violation of R9-C.

If your camera is mounted low then you knew the possibility existed for someone to drive in front of you. Its probably better if we don't make this another intent rule, where an official has to try to figure out what your team is thinking.

[MooreteP]

From the Q&A
If your camera is mounted low then you knew the possibility existed for someone to drive in front of you. Its probably better if we don't make this another intent rule, where an official has to try to figure out what your team is thinking.

The RI's will ask the team if they intended it to block shots, or obscure the ability of vision tracking.
If they say that it is only meant to block shots, then it will be allowed.

This happened at the NEDCMP, where a team added a blocker of Lexan, but the kept the opaque protective covering on it.
It was allowed.
But I sort of agree with you assertion that if you have a vision system mounted low, it may be blocked.

We'll see how this plays out in two weeks.

[kevin.li.rit]

I see a lot of robots making contact initially inside the bumper zone and then getting wedged over/under leading to inadvertent tipping. I would change the bumper rules so teams can make taller than 5 inch bumpers as long as they have 5 inch bumpers within the bumper zone. Teams would be place the bumpers outside of the 4-12 inches as long as 5 inches is always within the zone. In other words, teams can stack 2 noodles to create a standard 5" bumpers. Maybe cap the total height at 5inches.

I would also require robots to have 5"inches of bumper within the bumper zone when 100 or so pounds of force is applied to each side of the robot. Inspectors can check this relatively easily. This would help in situations where robots tilt back and forth from change in directions and their center wheel drops, and then their bumper heights change.

[evanperryg]

Get rid of the audience-selected defense. Yeah, it's fun, I know. Maybe I'm just lazy, but it's a lot of work to make sure you're cheering for the right one, and it cripples defense selection strategy. There's so many things that can be done with defense selection that are eliminated by taking away the control of slot 3.

[waialua359]

Get rid of category C defenses. Pretend the GDC never created it.
And for all events currently and in the future, the dumb white line in front of driver stations. I hate seeing DS's flying off the supporting platform from robots ramming the wall.

[Edxu]

Get rid of category C defenses. Pretend the GDC never created it.
And for all events currently and in the future, the dumb white line in front of driver stations. I hate seeing DS's flying off the supporting platform from robots ramming the wall.

Isn't the velcro there to STOP DS's from flying off the platforms? Or is it not effective enough?

[Jay O'Donnell]

Isn't the velcro there to STOP DS's from flying off the platforms? Or is it not effective enough?

If a robot runs full speed into the driver station wall? Not even close to enough.

[EricH]

Get rid of category C defenses. Pretend the GDC never created it.
And for all events currently and in the future, the dumb white line in front of driver stations. I hate seeing DS's flying off the supporting platform from robots ramming the wall.
The white line is there because back when auto was introduced, people immediately started thinking of ways to control their robots in auto. (There are threads on this, I've seen a couple of them.) So the GDC at the time put that line in. The idea is that you can reach your controls if you really need to, but the refs have a chance at seeing you do so.


And, there is NOTHING preventing you from taking actions to save your controls.


For the Category C defenses, I'd go with use different defenses. They did have other defenses on the drawing boards... Anybody want to try a rolling log or a spinning table? (One of those two was on the list, if I recall the podcast on that correctly...)



With respect to the vision/shot blocking, had a team at one event I reffed at show up with an improvised blocker: a volleyball net on a PVC frame. Great, it's see-through, they passed inspection no problem. The next match they came out and it was covered with painter's tape. That got the head ref asking questions. The tape didn't appear again after that match...

[Citrus Dad]

There might be tweaks like the ones suggested, but the GDC got this one right. Funny after the snoozer last year.

I like that the capture has to happen with all 3 robots in place. I still would like the GDC to send out a notice in September that a game will require that ALL 3 bots will need to accomplish a task to gain significant points. That would encourage teams to work together in the preseason.

[Zebra_Fact_Man]

I still would like the GDC to send out a notice in September that a game will require that ALL 3 bots will need to accomplish a task to gain significant points. That would encourage teams to work together in the preseason.

I disagree. If FIRST needs to put out a disclaimer to get teams to work together, there's a culture problem that needs to be addressed. Teams helping each other should be the default.

[DaveL]

I would like to see more motivation for teams to build shooting robots and to gain points for passing between robots.
The way to do might be to allow shooting boulders over the barriers in both directions and to have more visual targets for robots to use in auto mode. Plus larger targets would motivate more teams to build shooting robots.

Others mentioned the divider on the batter, I would go one step further and add some tint to the dividers on the barriers, to make it easier to line up and drive thru a barrier opening.

[BeardyMentor]

There might be tweaks like the ones suggested, but the GDC got this one right. Funny after the snoozer last year.

I like that the capture has to happen with all 3 robots in place. I still would like the GDC to send out a notice in September that a game will require that ALL 3 bots will need to accomplish a task to gain significant points. That would encourage teams to work together in the preseason.


It has been two consecutive years where 3 robots are required to score some points. I would just assume that next year will be similar. Let's see how long it takes teams to figure out that they should be helping other teams during the preseason.

[Doug G]

Allow multiple defenses to be damaged in auto per robot.

+1

This would have led to a lot more diverse autonomous routines.

[Coach#3536]

What would your opinion be on the flip in this video then?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cReB8jw-ccI
We were defending them too hard, and as a result as soon as one robot drove underneath our bumpers and got us up, they both kept hitting us until 3536 made a concerted effort, and we fell over. This was not a result of us being too top heavy, or accidental hits from opponents, but a clear, sustained effort to flip and incapacitate our robot, which irreparably bent our arm, requiring us to punch a new one out before worlds.
I say that it was intentional not only because of what the video shows, but also one of the FTA's claims to have heard their drive coach yelling "Flip them".
We are lucky enough to have great sponsors, one of those being Russels Technical Products, who allows us to get custom-made aluminum and steel parts for reduced prices, but imagine if this had been a new team. Our traveling costs for St Louis are nuts, as are many other team's, and new teams or teams with less sponsors could very well have been permanently crippled because of lack of funds to both make it to competition and make new parts. And you want to make it legal to flip.

This was not an accident, not a misunderstanding, and not in the spirit of FIRST, and it should not be permitted.

Which FTA? Look at the video all 3 were on the right of the field. We were in the center window. I know I did not say flip.
We apologized and I personally explained what happened to your drive team. It was a misjudgement from our side I didn't react fast enough and you seem to be trying to inflame the situation. The penalty was valid and we do not contest we messed up. It effected us severely in our rankings. We are sorry that your robot sustained damage as it was honestly not our intent. We are glad to hear your team is okay.

[GeeTwo]

I thought my earlier post sounded a bit Polyanna, so I went through the entire thread. Most of the recommended changes would have clearly messed with the game balance. I'm not going to comment on the equipment issues; they're not really the GDCs provenance. Based on the takeaway from our drive team, I suspect that (as inspectors have said for years) most of the disconnects are on the robot side. I'm going to consider the game as the Q&As treated it, not as it was in January.

Here are the few suggestions I felt were at least worthy of comment; the others would have (IMO) wrecked the game balance. The two adjustments that I actually endorse are in red, and another that I like but can't work around is in orange..:


Eliminate audience selection: I get that it's silly, but its also relevant. The marketplace is fickle, and we need to recognize it. Keep it!
Transparent drawbridge and Sally Port: they were a problem, but they were a symmetrical problem. I wouldn't be against changing it, but it's not really an improvement.
Dead robot fouls: If a robot dies or is disabled where it may repeatedly cause foul points, that's a problem for the team/alliance that has the dead robot. If the opposing alliance were to push the dead robot into a place that will be a foul, that should have been a G11. Perhaps a change in implementation, but not in the rules.
Make tipping legal: I would be in favor of the following rule, or more likely exception to G24: If a robot is tipped as a result of bumper-to-bumper interactions, and the other robot's bumpers are within the bumper rules, G24 is not applicable.
Make dividers between the defenses and batter thirds more visible: OK, provided they're still clear enough to allow the referees to do their jobs.
Allow a driver station clamp (or suction cup to the front screen): I don't see in the rules that it's forbidden, so unless it's been enforced as illegal no change is required.
Reduce the bumper zone window: The bumper zone is 8" high, and bumpers are required to be 5" +/- 1/2" high, resulting in a minimum of 1" overlap. This is probably a tiny bit too small, though I don't think this was the cause of most of the tipping we saw this year; I saw very few bumpers with a lower edge below 6" off the carpet on level ground.
Field Reset is too difficult; timing is too tight: Yes, I get it. I don't know what to do about this one without modifying the game beyond recognition.
Have dedicated scorekeepers in addition to referrees: in my mind, this falls on the "game execution committee" side. Sounds like a good idea, but (IMO) a bit outside the scope of this question.
Eliminating rules based on intent: That would be a great place to take things in theory, but living in Louisiana (one of the two states with criminal code law, and the only one with civil code law in the U.S.), and having a brother who was killed by violence, I know directly that while rules based on objective conditions sound like a great idea, the results are less than stellar.