Increasing tower strength for Championships.

[MARS_James]

Originally Posted by NShep98

Make that -9: http://www.thebluealliance.com/match/2016mawor_sf2m2

And with a rookie team, no less.

Who ever decided that the majority of that match needed to be shot through a overhead view from the tower, and not the very nice side view where everything can be seen deserves to be dragged into the street and pelted with boulders.

[Caleb Sykes]

Originally Posted by MARS_James

Who ever decided that the majority of that match needed to be shot through a overhead view from the tower, and not the very nice side view where everything can be seen deserves to be dragged into the street and pelted with boulders.

Like this.

[NShep98]

Originally Posted by MARS_James

Who ever decided that the majority of that match needed to be shot through a overhead view from the tower, and not the very nice side view where everything can be seen deserves to be dragged into the street and pelted with boulders.

In their defense, they were probably standing on the balcony that overlooked the field judging by the angle, and most likely only wanted to record their one alliance.

Anyway, if an alliance with a rookie team can score so many boulders, top-tier robots at champs most certainly can.

[michchinn]

Originally Posted by Justin Montois

Is breaching strength able to be changed as well as just tower?

Originally Posted by CalTran

Nah, just the tower. Blue box in 3.1.4 is the only point in which the manual talks about fortifications.

The rules also didn't say that the rock wall dimensions would change before the end of build or that different fabric would go on the low bar between week 1 and week 2.
Is there any reason a change in defense strength couldn't just be in a team update?

[Basel A]

This is a pretty interesting discussion because we don't know what it would take for the GDC to use this rule. It's been in the books since 2012 (probably because minibots were overpowered in 2011) and hasn't been used since then. But I'd have to say the games have been reasonably balanced in all those years (2015 was bad but changing point values would not have helped). Would the GDC only act if the game is very broken? Would they do it simply to improve gameplay?

[Old Guy]

Here is a better angle of Semi 2-2 from WPI... 17 boulders scored....10 by Team 126
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQ8SY7KI4aQ

[Chris is me]

If it changes, it would be after DCMP but before CMP, and to no more than 10. It won't get easier, and it probably won't get harder. Maybe by district champs it'll be really easy, I don't think so though. Limited number of balls and more teams being able to contest them as play gets more competitive...

[the_godfaubel]

In my opinion, they can only increase the tower strength OR the defense strength, not both. The additional time it would take to breach would prevent many, not all, alliance from being able to score 10 or more boulders in the tower. Obviously, I could be wrong, just guessing here. (This entire point could be useless if it is determined that they can only change the tower strength)

My prediction is they'll increase the tower strength to 10 at CMP, but we will have to see how often captures occur once teams are getting into their second and possibly third events.

[MARS_James]

Originally Posted by NShep98

In their defense, they were probably standing on the balcony that overlooked the field judging by the angle, and most likely only wanted to record their one alliance.

I am talking about the other video, not the one clearly done by a team.

[ToddF]

The number of crossings required to take down a defense, and the number of goals required to capture the tower are semi-fixed by the number of lights on the ramps and the tower. Changing the requirements would either be confusing or require hardware changes to the field.

There are, however, some simple rule changes which might make breaches and captures more difficult.
breaching:
1) All five defenses required to breach.

captures:
2) Increase the number of boulders allowed in a tower from 6 to 8 or 10.
3) Reduce the number of boulders on the floor from 6 to 4 or 3.
4) Offensive robots prohibited from entering the secret passage regardless if a defender is present.

both:
5) No penalty for defenders interfering with defense crossings. (eliminates shooting from defenses as a safe zone)

[Cal578]

A lot of good rule change suggestions here. But I am opposed to any change that creates a situation in which robots qualify under one set of rules, then compete under a significantly different set of rules. The tower strength change was built into the rules from kickoff, so I'd be completely ok with that. IMO, it should be changed to 10. But any of the other changes suggested in this thread would be unfair, and may actually hurt the Championship (because robots were designed to a different set of rules).

[tig567899]

Increasing health for the defenses is way more game-changing than increasing the health of the tower. Increasing the health of the defenses implies that points will be awarded for the third crossing (if not, the rules will be less intuitive and even harder to understand). That increases the viability of breacher bots and render high goal shooters more obsolete. After all, crossing the low bar awards the same amount of points as scoring in the high goal. A big reason to go for the more difficult high goal shot is the unlimited points potential. Lifting the limit on crossing points will drastically change the nature of the game, unfairly devaluing high goal shooter strategies and rewarding breacher bot strategies, both decided with the original game in mind.
Increasing defenses' health is too much of a game changer. I don't think it will or should happen.

An alternative to this is to not reward the third crossing with points. This way, there'd be more of a trade-off to the decision of:

A. Getting the full breach
B. Getting the partial breach but shooting
C. Trying to do both of the above.

It'd certainly add a few more variables to the game and make the breach slightly harder.

[Michael Hill]

Originally Posted by ToddF

The number of crossings required to take down a defense, and the number of goals required to capture the tower are semi-fixed by the number of lights on the ramps and the tower. Changing the requirements would either be confusing or require hardware changes to the field.

There are, however, some simple rule changes which might make breaches and captures more difficult.
breaching:
1) All five defenses required to breach.

captures:
2) Increase the number of boulders allowed in a tower from 6 to 8 or 10.
3) Reduce the number of boulders on the floor from 6 to 4 or 3.
4) Offensive robots prohibited from entering the secret passage regardless if a defender is present.

both:
5) No penalty for defenders interfering with defense crossings. (eliminates shooting from defenses as a safe zone)

It was explicitly stated they had the ability to change the strength of the tower. The lights used are individually addressable, so I imagine it's a simple software solution. In fact, it would surprise me if the FTA didn't have the capability of setting the tower strength (as in it's a built in configuration option).

[droswell]

Originally Posted by MARS_James

Who ever decided that the majority of that match needed to be shot through a overhead view from the tower, and not the very nice side view where everything can be seen deserves to be dragged into the street and pelted with boulders.

Here you go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZH42aJT28k

Thanks to the Ligerbots for the best collection of HD videos of an event I've seen from a team. Got the scores and everything. Really nice.

Also, we had a GoPro on one of our drive team. It's not easy to see the match, but it does give you a decent idea of the poor vision and the chaos behind the drive stations during a match. https://youtu.be/igLmJ5veFuE

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by Michael Hill

It was explicitly stated they had the ability to change the strength of the tower. The lights used are individually addressable, so I imagine it's a simple software solution. In fact, it would surprise me if the FTA didn't have the capability of setting the tower strength (as in it's a built in configuration option).

We were counting the number of lights on the TOWER to see what the max strength could be at IRI ...