Stronghold rant...
 

Ok, now this is my opinion as a spectator looking in on the game, and again this is my opinion, i'm not trying to change anyones perspective of the game or anything... Stronghold. I did not like this game particularly, and in this post ill give you all the reasons I can.

So it all started when they released the trailer... I feel like releasing the name of the game and the theme really kinda ruined some of the excitement. Sure it got people wondering, but the little clue drops every year is, in my opinion, best. But that's not a main issue to me. The second is that FIRST moved away from their idea of "its the sport for the mind". It became a automated medieval times, and a little boring at that.

When the game was released, I thought it was interesting...until I saw the end of the video. Then the first and only conclusion I came to was that this was nothing more then a game from the App store. And the medieval theme was contradictory. The theme would only attract a certain group of kids who are not already in FIRST Now lets get to the field. The fields looked cheesy, and the scoreboard and the sound effects where horrible. The game play was kinda boring, too. Everyone was mainly going for the one task, drive over the defenses. Cool at first, boring 90 matches later. There wasn't that much defense, either. Besides the obvious field defense, robots didn't pay too much attention of defense. The goal had too many obstacles, and it basically forced many of the robots to do the same thing.

I ventured out to watch the Orlando regional, and it was, for me, about a 2 and a half hour drive. I didn't stay more then an hour before losing interest.

Now I will say its much better then 2015, by a long shot. But taking away the sports aspect of it, adding gross sound effects, and overall game play I feel weakened this years game.

These are my opinions, and I may get hate for it, but its what I believe. My team did good this year, and I'm proud of them for doing good this year, but as a spectator, I feel that it became boring.

Also the whole foul thing is interesting. I don't have an opinion on that though.

Re: Stronghold rant...
 

Just to address a few points from my point of view:

Sure, the early stages of the game became boring: driving over defenses, again and again. But, from what I saw, there was plenty of peril and heart-pounding moments: "Will they get to the batter?" or "Can they finish off the CDF?" It's these moments that make the game good. And, as the game progressed into DCMPs and CMP, more and more robots were shooting, defending, etc.


Isn't every game after you've watched it over and over again?

I would tend to disagree. Sure, in qualifications there was not much defense, due to the extra RPs for what you do (not what you stop your opponent from doing). But, when the alliances got really good, defense became a big factor. I think it was 1405 on Einstein that had shut-down defense, leading them to finals. That was exciting to watch.

Anyway, these are my opinions.

Re: Stronghold rant...
 

I respect your feedback, and thank you for commenting.

Re: Stronghold rant...
 

Although your opinion is probably not the majority, you made some interesting points. Although I was initially unsure about the "themed" game, in the end, I think it made the game more approachable, because everyone has heard the stories about knights and castles. I also feel as if this theme did nothing to take away or distract from the competitive nature of the competition, because in the end, we know that the best robots aren't judged on embracing the theme, they are judged on how they are made, and how they perform.

I'm not really sure what you mean about it being like a game from the app store, but as far as "the theme will only attract kids not already in FIRST", I think that is the whole point of the theme! If the theme has attracted more kids from "outside the tent" it has succeeded!

I am not really sure that the field was cheesy, but IMO, the scoring displays were pretty nice.

While I appreciate the sharing of opinions, keep an open mind about stronghold.

Re: Stronghold rant...
 

Out of the 3 games I have watched in person its ranked 2.

1. 2014
2. 2016
3. 2015

My gripes of 2016
The outer works provided too much protection
climbing should have been worth more
the reffing was terrible (I saw soo many bad calls this year more then usual) not due always to bad refs but too many game aspects for them to handle.
not enough defense
the field was too cluttered
the defenses were boring

Overall it was fun to play and watch imo but was not as interesting as 2014 after a few weeks of the season.

Re: Stronghold rant...
 

I mean it kinda just looks like clash of clans to me. Or a crude knock off. I mean that how you can choose where you want to put the defense, and which defense to use, etc.

Re: Stronghold rant...
 

I agree. This game wasn't the worst, but its not nearly the best. Also i had a hard time really trying to keep up with what was going on. I would watch a robot go over a defense and hope it was about to do a cool play, only to turn around and go back to the middle.

Re: Stronghold rant...
 

This is also one of my favorite games that I've competed in (since 2010). Not as good as 2013, but it's a tossup between this and Rebound Rumble for #2.

Re: Stronghold rant...
 

With all due respect, if you've lost interest at a regional after an hour because of the game alone, then you've missed out on the other 90% of a FIRST Robotics Competition event. I think the fact that 600 teams and 20,000+ students and mentors will come to play Recycle Rush is a clear indicator that the game isn't everything.

That being said, the seniors on my team are the only ones that remember all the way back to Ultimate Ascent, but even they have been totally absorbed by literally every aspect of Stronghold. The theme, the challenge, the standards, and despite my increasing lack of tolerance, even the Monty Python puns... :p

I'll admit, I was skeptical when FIRST released the Disney teaser video. However, they backed it up with a great engineering challenge and some incredibly strategic gameplay. There's a reason that medieval themed App store games have had such success, and I think FIRST really hit it out of the park with Stronghold.

Re: Stronghold rant...
 

You should know what happens when you make the gripe I've bolded...

If you're out in SoCal in late September, I think I've got a ref shirt with your name on it. Otherwise, I suspect any local offseasons that are short on ref-power would be more than happy to put you on the crew. I assume that you know the game at least as well as the refs do in order to make that statement.


That being said, I did see some "odd" calls. Whether or not that means the reffing is "terrible" is up to the viewer, I suppose.

Re: Stronghold rant...
 

already signed up to be a ref at a few offseason comps.

I have no problem becoming a zebra if it means teams have a better experience.

Re: Stronghold rant...
 

Oohohohoh shots fired by Eric! Nice!

Re: Stronghold rant...
 

And ably deflected, I might add. Seeing as how he's already volunteering, there isn't much I can say further. Must have read my mind. :rolleyes:

Re: Stronghold rant...
 

Opinions will vary on how fun Stronghold was to watch, and how hard it was to ref, and so forth. But the fact remains that the GDC made a game that less experienced teams could still compete in. A drivebase alone could score 20+ points this year. Much better than last year where a drivebase could maybe spend the whole match carefully pushing a tote over to the scoring platform.

Re: Stronghold rant...
 

I think he took your metaphoric ref tee-shirt. ~groovy~

Re: Stronghold rant...
 

I suppose if we're all airing grievances, next year please don't make me look at both sides of the score board if I'm curious about one alliance. (I'm looking at you, Red-defenses-breached-on-the-Blue-side-of-the-board. -.-)

Re: Stronghold rant...
 

Stronghold was definitely a great transition from Recycle Rush. I see this game as having a fairly low skill floor where rookie teams/low resource teams can still help their alliance out, with the skill ceiling being extremely high and allowing for some of the most entertaining matches at the highest level of play. While the theming of it was a little cheesy, it was a fun game.

Re: Stronghold rant...
 

Can we please stop this "you can't blame the ref" culture. I know they have an impossible task and it is very hard to make every call right, but there are definitely times where people can say that the refs screwed up and made a lot of bad calls. That isn't to say they aren't trying, or they weren't prepared, but it is to say that the refs are not as good as would be expected of a normal sport. The GDC can design games that are easier to ref or require more training etc. to fix this problem. Also, some people are not in the position to just "get up and grab a ref shirt", for example they may be actually competing, or have a day job. Just because someone criticizes a group as a whole doesn't mean they can do better themselves. I can't play professional football but I sure as hell can say that U of M's kicker screwed up on the last play of the game vs. MSU and tried to kick the ball instead of falling on it leading to a MSU win on the last play of the game.

Please stop allowing anyone to even have a discussion about the quality of reffing, because it clearly needs to be talked about.

Re: Stronghold rant...
 

Thoughts on stronghold.

I have been in three years. This was my favorite game. However, as a spectator sport, Aerial Assist was much better.

The obstacles provided some great engineering challenges, but by the end of the season, they were just dull to watch. Teams either did them, or didn't do them, and there wasn't really any tension associated with the effort. One of the great disappointments for me was the "sally port loophole", which was that you could drive backwards through it, do a momentary flick to lose contact, and then drive forward, with no real loss of time. One of the great engineering challenges of the game suddenly became a triviality.

I think if they had been a little bit harder, and worth a little bit more, that would have made a better game. In the initial stages of design, it seemed like we could try and decide to do a "sapper bot" that concentrated on the obstacles, with boulders as an afterthought, or a "tower bot", that put its effort into shooting. In the end, everyone was able to be the sapper bot, and it was pretty much a given that there would be a breach, so the deciding factor was always being the best shooter.

The tortugas were fun, though, especially at the beginning of the season.

I, personally, liked the "themed" game. I would like to see more of them.

Overall: Very nice game. Four out of five stars.

Re: Stronghold rant...
 

Did you ask the refs at your events if any of them had a team competing or had a day job or had college classes to attend? I will be dumbfounded if more than 5% of FIRST Stronghold refs can say no to that question.

I am not going to say that refs are infallible, but I will say that they do a thankless job for no money, often at expense to them, and never get to hear the end of people that have never done the job trying to get them to do even better. For every match that CD gripes about, I expect there are 50 that garner no complaints[1], 98% success is pretty good for volunteers.

[1] I might try tracking this next year.

Re: Stronghold rant...
 

Sure. Fine. They all have day jobs. But who isn't thanking them? Everyone realizes they are important and necessary. Sometimes it sucks dealing with them when you disagree on a ruling, but so what? people still realize that at the end of the day they are doing their best, and an important part of the game.

But you are ignoring the other points I made. Why are we not allowed to talk about refs as a whole on CD? If anyone anywhere makes an even SLIGHTLY critical comment towards referees, the automatic first responce is "hur dur well if you are so talented why don't you do it...". It is very unproductive to never be able to talk about refs at all, even when we are not talking about a perticular ref or a perticular instance.

Refs are doing god's work, but that doesn't mean that we cant have a discussion about ways to make them better or say that overall, as a whole, not talking about any particular places they may have screwed up, the reffing quality was not up to par(IMHO) this year considering it is a competition trying to call itself a real sport worth of varsity letters etc etc etc. There could be many reasons for this, 99% of which I would blame on the GDC and the training system, not on the refs themselfs, but presently I cannot even express that opinion on CD.

What I am trying to say is in its current state, there can be no constructive criticism of referees as a whole on CD recently and this is a problem.

Re: Stronghold rant...
 

I was a first year ref this year, and at the event I reffed at, my former team (2410) and my cousin's team (2335) competed at. I'm also a student at Missouri S&T, and studied the manual more in depth this year than my other college years.
That being said, for the record, EricH was calling out the other poster because his "constructive criticism" was simply "Reffing sucked this year."

Many times this year, and other years, when someone has a gripe about the Referees, is is not constructive criticism. It simply calling out the refs on doing a terrible job, and it really does scare off new refs. I'm contemplating becoming a regular ref, schedule allowing, but sometimes the threads on CD make me contemplate the decision, and I'm sure others choose not to ref because of the public callouts.

Re: Stronghold rant...
 

emphasis mine. I want to make a few points.
1. Sometimes the refs are to blame for making a bad call. That does not mean all refs were bad, which is how many people come off.
2. Out of the 30+ refs I know, I think ONE of them doesn't have a day job/school/mentor, and that's because he's retired. He's earned that.
3. refs not being "as good as normal sports refs". I'm sorry, but when the rules for football change every year, then I will accept this argument.
4. If the GDC designs games that are easier to ref, they will probably be more boring, like Recycle Rush, to watch.
5. You make a point about saying that a kicked screwed up a play, however, if you were in his shoes (and were skilled enough to be there) can you say without a doubt that in that split second you would have made a perfect decision?
6. I was going to count how many times there were students in the Question Box at my regional, but lost track very quickly because I was busy doing other things. We hadn't hit lunch on Friday before I had counted 6 and missed plenty of others.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be a discussion about the quality of reffing, because I personally do think some refs want to be there more than others and know the rules better. What I am saying is instead of just complaining and saying "all refs suck, booo! they should be better!11!" propose a method for making sure they know the rules even better, or help to recruit more refs for your volunteer coordinator! :)

and because I saw your newest post before I submitted:
What? How can you not bring this up? If this is what you actually think, then it would be responded to differently than "the refs sucked at reffing" (paraphrasing)

Re: Stronghold rant...
 

This is what I'm getting at. Just so everybody's clear, I disagree with some calls, and I am, in fact, a ref. The difference is this: I disagree with the CALL, but I don't blame the REF. There is a difference. Most CDers will jump straight for blaming the refs.

There's a spotlight, might crop up eventually, from a good long time ago, and it goes something to the effect of "if you're going to say that the call was bad, you better know for a FACT that the call was bad".

Now, I strongly disagree with a couple of calls that were made at Worlds, and the primary disagreement I have is CONSISTENCY. (If you're going to make the wrong call, at least make the wrong call against everybody, see?) But, that's not something I can control. I wasn't reffing at Worlds.

Re: Stronghold rant...
 

This! I hated how one moment I'm checking the status of one team's tower, and have to take a double take for counting, and am now 2-3 seconds behind in scores for the match.

I'm guessing the blue/red tower thing would be obvious to a quantity of people out there, but with so much going on at once, it would be nice to have the simplest, most straightforward scoreboard layout.

Re: Stronghold rant...
 

I think we're getting off track with the main point of this post. Everyone will always disagree with the refs, that happens every year. i do admit, They have made mistakes, but they are humans. People say I'm indecisive, but I don't know about that.

Re: Stronghold rant...
 

Why do you believe that ChiefDelphi is the place for constructive criticism for referees?

My opinion is there are many other more official ways to handle a poor reffing situation (because, yes, they do exist. Yes, they need to be addressed.)

Here are some suggestions:

1. Question Box at the event. This is the quickest and most official method of questioning a referee.

2. Talking to the Volunteer Coordinator in person about your concerns. Usually the VCs contact information can be found on the event website. As a VC myself, this is extremely great information to know. Sure, I may ask if you want to ref yourself, or if you know of anyone who will (I'm always trying to recruit everyone around me anyway), but I'll listen, I'll note your concerns, and I may reassign the guilty ref to a different position at the next event IF POSSIBLE.

3. Talking to the Head Ref about your concerns. The HR won't be able to explain much about a call after the event is over, but they can listen to your concerns and take them into account for the future.

4. Talking to the Event Coordinator about your concerns. (similar to the VC).

If you absolutely must address it via social media or ChiefDelphi, then don't simply say, "The reffing is poor. This call was wrong." Because that isn't constructive criticism at all. It's acting like a backseat driver. If you truly believe that CD is the media to use and the way to make change, then suggest a solution to go along with your criticism. Otherwise it's not CONSTRUCTIVE, and it's just complaining and whining.

Re: Stronghold rant...
 

My 2 cents about the game, as an alumni who was not deeply invested in the competition this year (mostly a spectator):

Themed game diminished the "sport" feel that, IMO, FIRST should be going for. I agree it felt like a cheap app.

There was LOTS going on at once and it made it hard to figure out what was actually happening. There was certainly a difficulty curve in watching and understanding matches beyond knowing the rules. Lots of actions scored points (of different values, under different conditions), arbitrary jump in score after breach, unclear scoreboard and fouls made for a hectic game to watch.

Fouls this year were a mess. There were lots of fouls, little consistency and a large grey area. It was borderline impossible to figure out what had been called by watching the match, which is frustrating for spectators, teams and (I assume) refs answering questions. IMO they were also weighed too heavily and swayed too many close matches.

Robots losing comm happened too often.

All robots could effectively participate.

Excellent variation in robot design.

(from what I could tell) It was a great engineering challenge.

Exciting to watch.

Re: Stronghold rant...
 

I agree with just about everything you say. I feel like first should make a game that's easy to understand, and then explain if your at a demo or something. For this game, I feel like you would need to show them the video, and that's too time consuming for a demo. That's why for 2014, you didn't need to go to detail, you could say basically robot shoots ball over trust equals 10 points. Robot shoots ball into huge goal equals 10 points. robot pushes ball into logo equals one point. You don't have to really get into it saying about the Coopertitin part if you really don't want to.

Re: Stronghold rant...
 

That doesn't belong on a list of gripes about the game. What most people call "losing communication" was almost always actually "loose robot wiring". Poor electrical connections caused about 80% of the problems I helped teams with (another ten percent was incorrect networking and firewall settings).

Re: Stronghold rant...
 

Yup. I know it's fun to blame the FMS every time you lose connection, but frankly, the issue is usually on the team's side.

Re: Stronghold rant...
 

How many of these were loose barrel connectors on the new radios?

Re: Stronghold rant...
 

I didn't see any of those myself. A handful of teams told me they had already diagnosed and corrected a loose radio power connector before I got to them (often with wads of electrical tape). About half of them then had the same loss of control in their next match, and the problem turned out to be a different loose wire.

Re: Stronghold rant...
 

I'm wondering now, what would make a good game? It should be a mix of what the public can understand and enjoy, and what students can explain and also enjoy...