Official FIRST Stronghold Teaser!

[Electronica1]

Originally Posted by TAlholm

tl;dr
Lunacy on carpet? Defend the trailers.

Replace the green and pink things on the 2009 trailer with a flag and you might be on to something. Maybe the trailer is also styled like a castle tower.

[jcatt]

Ok, So I don't usually post on these types of threads, (I don't think I have posted in general in over 2 years anyway) but I was talking with a fellow FIRST Alumni about the new game and something kinda struck me...

A few considerations first:

• The blueprint from the teaser is representative of the playing field.
• The suggestions of those previous that the driver stations are along the sides of the field instead of the ends.
• Some large central scoring platform as indicated in the blueprint.
• In the past few years it appears FIRST is trying to move teams into specializing more and limiting the ability for the "One Robot to Rule them All" teams.

So, you now have a field which is designed to limit the view of different positions of the driver station, where more defensive robots are placed on the side closes to the opponent alliance for a better view. While the more scoring oriented teams are in the middle and far positions. Trouble is this could cause chaos with the scheduling of the qualification rounds. (No defensive robots for the position, or all defensive robots, etc)

Now, it occurred to me that what if you implemented a class system for robots. You would have to pick your class at the start of the build season and the rules would be so different that it would be difficult to switch mid-season. You would also register at the event as that particular robot class and the scheduling system would be designed to accommodate one robot of each class per alliance. The class system would also be designed with tiered levels of robot complexity and/or game complexity, so only a particular class can achieve a specific game objective. If there are more robots in a particular class they get less matches so their average score counts much more that a lower populated class which gets a lot more matches. It also give the teams who pick the "easier" class, traditionally the smaller or less experienced teams a fairly good chance to play with the more advanced, powerhouse type teams who pick the top tier class.

Now the obligatory wildly unlikely supporting data from the teaser....

Rally your Kingdom - In recent Fantasy culture when Kingdoms when to "war" they would have different classes of combat: Calvary Knights, Archers, Footmen
Build Your Champion - In most RPG games where you pick your character (Champion) you are expected to select some specialization class.
Different colors of flags on the tents - Could indicate different classes of "soldier" as stated above

So there you have it. It was a fun little though experiment... Thinking completely outside the preconceptions of games gone past. Keeps the mind limber I suppose and in actual fact the more I think about it, the more it sounds awesome.

Anyway, enough from me spoiling the worthwhile conversation here. Have fun and I will see you all around game time!

P.S For all you scouting fanatics - Easier Scouting as you only have to look at the classes outside yourself and easier pick lists when you are confined to a specific set of robots for a particular role.

[ScottM]

Hmmm.....

A Maize and Blue Griffin versus a scarlet and gray dragon?

[Whippet]

Originally Posted by jcatt

...

This. I really like the idea of different rules for different classes of robots, and it is actually reasonably plausible to implement.

[346CADmen]

I found the order of the video interesting. The champion (with blue banner), the Stronghold tower, then the red banner.
Could that imply alliances will build the stronghold in auto/early play and end game be attack opposition position? time will tell.

[liquidmetal9015]

I took a look at the blueprints: I removed the lines and highlighted the important parts.

[pryland]

Center goal (stronghold) color scored (raised flag easier for audience to understand who is winning) for which alliance has scored the most goals, and a way for the opposing alliance to remove opponents' goals (capture). Perhaps a brick castle?

Strong offense and defense aspects, which were sorely missed last year.

Originally Posted by Mitchell1714

A few observations after watching 10 times:

2. At 20 seconds there are 6 students in blue and 1 mentor in red looking at the robot in the pits. At 41 seconds there are 6 students and no mentor driving the robot. Will the GDC change the rules to disallow mentors to be robo-coaches?

I would love to see this rule change.
As a mentor I STRONGLY believe it should ONLY be students in the driver stations. We are trying to develop leaders. Let them lead.

[Jared Russell]

bp = ball pit

[Ty Tremblay]

Originally Posted by Libby K

But as far as bringing people from 'outside the tent' in to FIRST? I'd pick an actual sport any day.

As far as I'm concerned, 2010 and 2012 were the 2nd and 3rd most boring games in FRC since 2004 (2015 takes the cake, and I can't speak to earlier games).

What's most important is that the robot is exciting, not that the robot plays with soccerballs or foam basketballs.

We don't need a sport themed game. We don't even need a theme at all. We need an exciting game that's easy for spectators to understand and fun for teams to play.

We won't know if we have that until at least January 9, so don't be so quick to write this game off less than 24 hours after seeing a teaser.

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by pryland

I would love to see this rule change.
As a mentor I STRONGLY believe it should ONLY be students in the driver stations. We are trying to develop leaders. Let them lead.

No one take the bait...

Pryland, there are some great threads you can search for on here that discuss this topic at length.

-Mike

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by Abby341

I'm really hoping this season's game incorporates game play outside the field. Disney is all about an interactive experience so maybe there will be greater opportunity for involvement off the field that could affect ranking.
FIRST is always about supporting other teams and reaching out to one another to create a better community. The "Build your champion. Rally your kingdom." tag line steps beyond the usual red alliance vs. blue alliance camaraderie we normally see at competition. There is no mention of building a kingdom or alliances, so maybe larger pre-determined alliances (like champ divisions) that span the whole competitions instead of switching alliances throughout?
Theres always the possibility for more then three robot per alliances that could be switched out throughout playoffs putting more focus on creating well rounded alliances (or kingdoms).
But obviously I'm hoping for a stronger defense and strategy heavy game after a season that involved no defense and little diversity in alliance strategy.

I think that the 2014 game which required much more interrobot interaction led to teams helping each other much more. I've posted on this observation numerous times on CD. I don't think we need a fixed alliance to lead to greater coopertion; rather a game structure that creates more interrelationships.

[Oblarg]

Originally Posted by Libby K

SO true - I'm not sure that's the introduction to mainstream culture we want for ourselves...

For an organization that wants to brand itself as the "Sport for the Mind" and reach 'outside the tent', I don't think this 'theme' is going to resonate outside of the nerd-crowd as well as they think it is.

I think it's heaps better than Recycle Rush, and I'm sure Disney's help will make it crowd-friendly - but here's how I see it:

In 2010 or 2012, for example, you're practicing in the school, kicking soccerballs or shooting three-pointers from the key, and one of the students on your school's best Sportsball team walks by. Guess what? You've got common ground now. This is something they already 'get', and maybe they'll come to a competition to see it. Once they're there, they're hooked and want to do more FIRST. You've converted someone who didn't see the value in the robotics team, to a STEM enthusiast. Isn't that the whole point of why we do this?

Engagement from even an already-enthusiastic audience at an FRC demonstration was like pulling teeth this year, at least for us. In the middle of our summer day camp expo, a first-grader asked me: "Why would you want to make a robot that just stacks boxes? What about the cool frisbee one?" (We bring our 2013 robot to play outside with the campers, and demo FLL/FTC/FRC inside.)

I hope Stronghold will be a little more engaging, if only because all the blog posts, teasers, etc. made so far have led us to believe there's some robot interaction.

But as far as bringing people from 'outside the tent' in to FIRST? I'd pick an actual sport any day.

Can I play devil's advocate for a moment, and suggest that there's nothing wrong with FIRST being just as enthusiastic about drawing influence from things that nerds like as from things that the general public likes?

Yes, the ultimate goal is to engender greater public awareness, enthusiasm, and respect for science and technology. I do not think, however, that we necessarily need to compromise on things we like that non-nerdy people might not in order to do that. If we truly believe that only way to make science appeal to the general public is to make it look like pro sports, then perhaps we ought to step back and reinterpret that as there being a lot more that we have to change.

For reference, I don't LARP. But I think that it is probably insensitive to people who do, and who enjoy it, to tell them that it is a mistake for FIRST to use imagery that appeals to their hobbies because their hobbies are too nerdy and would give people the "wrong impression" about the competition. If this is the cost of changing the public's attitude towards science and technology, then what attitudes are we really changing? I don't see the end result of a public who are fine with STEM - but only so long as it's packaged to look like pop culture - as a particularly impressive mark of progress.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by liquidmetal9015

I took a look at the blueprints: I removed the lines and highlighted the important parts.

Can you highlight the game field boundaries? Those are the lines I'll bet are the actual field set up.

[KeeganP]

I know many have pointed out the possibility of a "capture the flag" type game, but what if you take that a step farther and (using the two holes drilled on Dozer in the video) put a "target" on there. Now, the objective is to capture the flag (and defend your own flag from being captured) while getting hit as few times as possible. Maybe the "ammunition" are tennis balls. Maybe the game ends when you have successfully captured the flag and raised it up on your own "tower" or when time expires -- whichever comes first.

Alternatively, maybe we have another end game where you must raise the opposing flag up fastest (think 2011 but with flags, not minibots).

FIRST spent a ton of money on the totes this year, so I could potentially see them using the totes to build the "towers" on the field. Still not sure what purpose they serve exactly (I don't exactly see another 2003-style "knock it down to score points!" game.

In other news, how might one pick up a 1"dia PVC pipe (flag pole) off the ground? A fast, accurate mechanism that does that would be potentially tricky to build robustly enough to survive being hit by other robots. during gameplay.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by Libby K

SO true - I'm not sure that's the introduction to mainstream culture we want for ourselves...

For an organization that wants to brand itself as the "Sport for the Mind" and reach 'outside the tent', I don't think this 'theme' is going to resonate outside of the nerd-crowd as well as they think it is.

I think it's heaps better than Recycle Rush, and I'm sure Disney's help will make it crowd-friendly - but here's how I see it:

In 2010 or 2012, for example, you're practicing in the school, kicking soccerballs or shooting three-pointers from the key, and one of the students on your school's best Sportsball team walks by. Guess what? You've got common ground now. This is something they already 'get', and maybe they'll come to a competition to see it. Once they're there, they're hooked and want to do more FIRST. You've converted someone who didn't see the value in the robotics team, to a STEM enthusiast. Isn't that the whole point of why we do this?

Engagement from even an already-enthusiastic audience at an FRC demonstration was like pulling teeth this year, at least for us. In the middle of our summer day camp expo, a first-grader asked me: "Why would you want to make a robot that just stacks boxes? What about the cool frisbee one?" (We bring our 2013 robot to play outside with the campers, and demo FLL/FTC/FRC inside.)

I hope Stronghold will be a little more engaging, if only because all the blog posts, teasers, etc. made so far have led us to believe there's some robot interaction.

But as far as bringing people from 'outside the tent' in to FIRST? I'd pick an actual sport any day.

I think playground games like capture the flag (seemingly the consensus for this game), dodgeball, four square, tetherball could be good alternatives that also can capture the public's attention. We don't need to stick to the "commercial" sports.