If YOU were the GDC...

[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.

[Anupam Goli]

Originally Posted by MaGiC_PiKaChU

Allow hard defense, make tipping legal. No more complaining about red cards

Yea, let's just incentivize flipping robots over when you're losing instead of on the fly strategy and smart defense. /s

[billbo911]

Honestly, I LOVE THIS GAME!!!

As an FTAA at three tournaments this year, I repeatedly saw one flaw that could have easily been remedied.
The Ball Counters in the tower work fairly well. The only failures were caused by the Corral filling up.
The flaw was that penalties for more than 6 boulders in the Castle were hardly ever called because the Ref's had to leave their station to see the problem.

The one thing I would like to have seen as a "fix" for this would have been accomplished by adding Ball Counters to the Embrasures.

This way, the FMS would only need to know how many balls were contained in the Castle at the beginning of the match. After that, FMS could keep track of how many balls were in the Castle at any time. If the number went over 6 for more than a specified amount of time, indicators could signal the failure to return balls so that the Ref's would be notified, or penalties could automatically be assigned.

Another issue I saw was with the Radios, but that horse has been flogged enough already.

[Zuelu562]

Jumping off StAxis, I would change Stronghold in the following ways:

1: Crossing the auto line on your side of the field (ie, if you are blue, crossing the auto line on the blue outer works side) becomes the point where a foul is assessed, and any significant (read not extension vs extension contact) beyond the midline is a foul.

Encourages multi-ball/using the center balls in auto, the consequences and end results of current center line penalties (usually a robot heading in the wrong direction nearly contacting an opposing robot [almost] in the outer works) are still covered.

2: Some change to the ranking point system such that wins recieve a static or static + 1 ranking points and losses receive bonuses for doing well, such as outlined earlier (my thoughts - Win: 2 points plus 1 point for Breach AND Capture. Tie score: 1 point for each alliance plus 1 for Breach AND Capture per alliance, Loss: 0 points, plus 1 for Breach, 1 for Capture. Something like that.)

This eliminates teams "Running away" with the standings that have a > 90% capture rate, and doesn't completely disincentivize winning. Week 1 you're going to see a lot of 2 to 0 or 1 RP matches, later at DCMP's you'll see 3 to 2's left, right and center.

3: Get rid of the Audience Selection. Hindsight being 20/20, seeing how many events (my experience at a Week 2, 5 and queueing at NE DCMP) quickly devolved into the same 4 audience selections coming out every time until eliminations (where we saw drastically more Drawbridge, especially come the finals), it barely made sense to have it actually be a choice.

My personal solution would be either FMS random selection from the category per match (which becomes locked in for the match the same time as the alliance selected defenses), or have the teams pick what it is from the predetermined category, but it must be in slot 3. The former option is a lot cleaner from an event perspective, but the restriction on the team's end still gives them choice from the latter.

More might come to mind, but as you can see, a lot of my thoughts on how to improve this game are complete hindsight things that even the most experienced mentors may not have been able to predict would happen given the sheer Monkey-Shakespeare quotient that FRC inherently has. I think this game has the least amount of game grinding failures certainly in my time in FIRST, and one of the fewest all time. It's certainly a game FIRST can look back on and go "How do we recreate the success of Stronghold with this game".

[IKE]

Originally Posted by billbo911

...snip...
This way, the FMS would only need to know how many balls were contained in the Castle at the beginning of the match. After that, FMS could keep track of how many balls were in the Castle at any time. If the number went over 6 for more than a specified amount of time, indicators could signal the failure to return balls so that the Ref's would be notified, or penalties could automatically be assigned.
...snip...

DOGMA...

I like the warning, but please no automated penalties....

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by IKE

DOGMA...

I like the warning, but please no automated penalties....

I think not having automated penalties but instead having a light or something show up on the field to notify the referees of a potential issue would work.

[Billfred]

We played early, and there were two very different games--we didn't shoot a single ball at Palmetto or Orlando because everyone was hellbent on breaching.

As such: No extra ranking points for breach or capture, just score the 20/25. That may not be the vibe I'd have if we played later in the season, but that's what I'm going with.

[Andy A.]

I think this years game was pretty good. At the very least it had a narrative and a flow to it that many games have lacked, and that made it easier to explain to spectators. I only have a few quibbles, and they really are quibbles with the benefit of hindsight. All the same;

Visibility. The drawbridge, portcullis and sally port were simply too hard to see around, over or through. The drawbridge didn't need to be that tall or opaque and the sallyport didn't need to be opaque at all. The portcullis is alright, but it's still huge.

Other things that were transparent would have benefited from some tinting or other way to help make them visible; the dividers on the batter are nigh on impossible to see from across the field. I know that the GDC said that visibility was part of the challenge, but that strikes me as retconning. There's no way they set out to make a game that obstructed driver visibility so much on purpose. They wanted a draw bridge that looked like a draw bridge and only after they got it did notice what it did to visibility.

The secret passage was probably not a great idea. I get what they were trying to do, but what it turned into was just a way for more fouls to get incurred. It seems like the GDC frequently creates these sorts of 'protected' alleys that require piles of rules to make work. I'm not sure what the better solution would have been.

Those are really the only issues that stood out in my mind. Other things, like refs unevenly calling penalties for flipping or whatever, apply to all games in FIRST.

[wazateer1]

One thing I am really curious about is whether the GDC intended the boulders to be able to get stuck in so many ways. Obviously they get stuck on/under/in robots, but they can interfere with crosses in so many ways that the game would be different if they were bigger to avoid just that.

Low Bar: Even before the change, boulders still could have gotten stuck here, but with the new fabric you almost always risk a G38 if you are carrying another ball.

Cheval De Frise: The balls seem to be the perfect diameter and compress-ability for getting stuck under this

Rock Wall: Woe to those who try to cross the rock wall if a sneaky boulder is hiding on the flat of the defense, but behind the wall. Only a little bit will peek over, but the colors are so similar that a driver in a high intensity situation will probably not notice. A robot not trying to Dukes-of-Stronghold the defense will inevitably get stuck.

Moat: The moat is a little bit better then the rock wall, because you can see the boulder, but that doesn't mean the defense isn't much harder then it was without the boulder. (Making the boulder bigger wouldn't help here, but it is just another instance of the boulders interfering)

Drawbridge / Sally Port: Not seeing the boulder, not seeing your robot, getting stuck, and not knowing anything is wrong while you continue to try to open these defenses (from behind, of course, the most popular way) takes a lot of time. Especially when you already think it is going to take a lot of time and don't question whether you are stuck until you fail to open the door multiple times. The hard part is the boulders don't make much of a difference in your robots tippyness, they just keep the wheels off the ground.

It seems like if the boulders were bigger, or the rules were changed so you could "hold" one ball and "herd" another, a lot of these issues would have been avoided.

Also, I would have removed the brattice. I don't know about anyone elses experience, but I haven't seen it used once.

[Doug Frisk]

Originally Posted by Anupam Goli

Yea, let's just incentivize flipping robots over when you're losing instead of on the fly strategy and smart defense. /s

Eh. Build a robot that doesn't tip. There are bumpers, contact between robots was intended as part of the game. Building a robot that's a bowling ball on top of a stick isn't (or shouldn't be) a good design.

[notmattlythgoe]

Originally Posted by DareDad

Eh. Build a robot that doesn't tip. There are bumpers, contact between robots was intended as part of the game. Building a robot that's a bowling ball on top of a stick isn't (or shouldn't be) a good design.

There is a difference between building a robot that is difficult to tip over and removing tipping violations that allow robots to actively attempt to tip other robots (ex. a ramp specifically for tipping).

Even building a short robot does not mean that you won't get tipped, look at 836.

[Breakaway3937]

I think a unique challenge to the design phase early in the season would have been to allow robots to manipulate and hold up to three boulders. Then, you would have had a lot less low bars capable robots and a lot more variation in design and height. Of course, you would have to add more boulders to the game in order to counteract the choke hold strategy that would exist. Number of boulders to take down the tower would need to go up as well.

[aldaeron]

I feel like there was not enough of an incentive to be a tall bot or to do all 5 defenses. Not exactly sure how to fix that.

General suggestion for most games: Change how elims work compared with quals. Make the match 30-60 seconds longer and up the difficulty of the game (i.e. up starting tower strength to 12, but give 45 more seconds). Maybe it inches up as you go into semis and then into finals. The alliances in elims are a different than quals since they were chosen to be cohesive teams. Throw them a little more of a curve ball.

Specific to Stronghold

I would add a 10 point bonus for damaging all 5 defenses in quals and up it to 20 in elims (keep the 1 RP and 20 point bonuses as is). This gives an incentive to do the Category C defenses in elims while you are scrambling to get around the defender to get balls in to weaken the tower. It also may make you choose between getting all 5 defenses and playing active defense in your courtyard. Being a taller bot helps with the Category C defenses so maybe this helps that angle.


I would also allow two balls to be carried instead of one with the starting tower strength doubled to 16. Robots could start with 2 balls. This would allow for some correction if you shoot one ball and miss. It seemed like a lot of robots spent a lot of time lining up only to miss then go chase the ball. This might require changing point values a little so that breaching points and shooting points are more in line (I liked seeing these two activities worth similar points). I think there should also be a way for defenders to "clear" balls from their court yard. Perhaps allow a defender to control as many balls as they want (i.e. push all missed shots into their own secret passage or carry 4 balls or something)


Color the dividers on the batter so they are easier to see. Maybe tape on the outer edges or something. Lots of unnecessary collisions with those clear shields.

Make the tall defenses clear wherever possible (especially the drawbridge)

No more camera poles

Allow driver station to be clamped down (C clamp should be built into driver station IMO).

Overall a very good game.

Big tangent (maybe should be separate thread): If FIRST worked out a Stronghold like game with a set of obstacles and a game piece shot into a goal and changed the details of the defenses and the game pieces and goals every year, could FIRST become more of a traditional spectator sport?

-matto-

[Doug Frisk]

Originally Posted by notmattlythgoe

There is a difference between building a robot that is difficult to tip over and removing tipping violations that allow robots to actively attempt to tip other robots (ex. a ramp specifically for tipping).

Even building a short robot does not mean that you won't get tipped, look at 836.

Building a tall robot doesn't mean you'll be tipped either. There are plenty of examples where it seems the intent was to jostle a robot to mess with its aim, but the robot tipped.

[Hitchhiker 42]

Originally Posted by wazateer1

Also, I would have removed the brattice. I don't know about anyone elses experience, but I haven't seen it used once.

195 at the Hartford District event used it. I'm not sure why, but it was really interesting seeing them pick up from something not many have done. Maybe for proof of concept?