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, 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.

[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.

[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

[Doug G]

Originally Posted by efoote868

Allow multiple defenses to be damaged in auto per robot.

+1

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

[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.

[dirtbikerxz]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

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,

[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.

[northstardon]

Originally Posted by Edxu

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.

[Louisiana Jones]

Originally Posted by Edxu

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]

Originally Posted by Louisiana Jones

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]

Originally Posted by Edxu

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]

Originally Posted by efoote868

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.