[GeeTwo]

Uh, please, no.

First of all, we try to consider our game strategy before we build field elements. This year, we did not build a Sally Port or Draw Bridge, because we didn't plan to cross those defenses, and there are probably plenty of low-goal teams that never bothered to build a tower above about four feet, saving a lot of heartache. In 2013 we only put a full set of rungs on one face of our pyramid, and we didn't care about the corners, because that's all we needed. If we'd waited a bit longer before starting, we probably would have built something that didn't look like a pyramid at all, just three bars between two wooden ladder frames. (This is what started us prioritizing goals for field elements, BTW.)

Besides, looking at field elements, it's usually straightforward to figure out what you do with them. The low bar, rough terrain, and ramparts are all clearly obstacles to be driven over/under. The pyriamid goal was recognizable to players of Frisbee golf. The size and shape of the Aerial Assist Goals certainly suggested the size and shape of the game piece. Of course, seeing the field, most of us would have ALSO expected a hanging endgame to Aerial Assist.

Once you figure that out, you will have teams begin prototyping likely functions, increasing the disparity between high-resource and low-resource teams. Once the field drawings for Stronghold were released under this proposal, 233 and 254 and 1114 will be building drive trains, mid-level teams will order pneumatic wheels and/or tank tread and do some CAD work, low resource teams will build field elements they might never use, and rookie and really-low resource teams would fall farther behind.