If YOU were the GDC...

[Coach#3536]

Originally Posted by CloakAndDagger

What would your opinion be on the flip in this video then?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cReB8jw-ccI
We were defending them too hard, and as a result as soon as one robot drove underneath our bumpers and got us up, they both kept hitting us until 3536 made a concerted effort, and we fell over. This was not a result of us being too top heavy, or accidental hits from opponents, but a clear, sustained effort to flip and incapacitate our robot, which irreparably bent our arm, requiring us to punch a new one out before worlds.
I say that it was intentional not only because of what the video shows, but also one of the FTA's claims to have heard their drive coach yelling "Flip them".
We are lucky enough to have great sponsors, one of those being Russels Technical Products, who allows us to get custom-made aluminum and steel parts for reduced prices, but imagine if this had been a new team. Our traveling costs for St Louis are nuts, as are many other team's, and new teams or teams with less sponsors could very well have been permanently crippled because of lack of funds to both make it to competition and make new parts. And you want to make it legal to flip.

This was not an accident, not a misunderstanding, and not in the spirit of FIRST, and it should not be permitted.

Which FTA? Look at the video all 3 were on the right of the field. We were in the center window. I know I did not say flip.
We apologized and I personally explained what happened to your drive team. It was a misjudgement from our side I didn't react fast enough and you seem to be trying to inflame the situation. The penalty was valid and we do not contest we messed up. It effected us severely in our rankings. We are sorry that your robot sustained damage as it was honestly not our intent. We are glad to hear your team is okay.

[GeeTwo]

I thought my earlier post sounded a bit Polyanna, so I went through the entire thread. Most of the recommended changes would have clearly messed with the game balance. I'm not going to comment on the equipment issues; they're not really the GDCs provenance. Based on the takeaway from our drive team, I suspect that (as inspectors have said for years) most of the disconnects are on the robot side. I'm going to consider the game as the Q&As treated it, not as it was in January.

Here are the few suggestions I felt were at least worthy of comment; the others would have (IMO) wrecked the game balance. The two adjustments that I actually endorse are in red, and another that I like but can't work around is in orange..:

• Eliminate audience selection: I get that it's silly, but its also relevant. The marketplace is fickle, and we need to recognize it. Keep it!
• Transparent drawbridge and Sally Port: they were a problem, but they were a symmetrical problem. I wouldn't be against changing it, but it's not really an improvement.
• Dead robot fouls: If a robot dies or is disabled where it may repeatedly cause foul points, that's a problem for the team/alliance that has the dead robot. If the opposing alliance were to push the dead robot into a place that will be a foul, that should have been a G11. Perhaps a change in implementation, but not in the rules.
• Make tipping legal: I would be in favor of the following rule, or more likely exception to G24: If a robot is tipped as a result of bumper-to-bumper interactions, and the other robot's bumpers are within the bumper rules, G24 is not applicable.
• Make dividers between the defenses and batter thirds more visible: OK, provided they're still clear enough to allow the referees to do their jobs.
• Allow a driver station clamp (or suction cup to the front screen): I don't see in the rules that it's forbidden, so unless it's been enforced as illegal no change is required.
• Reduce the bumper zone window: The bumper zone is 8" high, and bumpers are required to be 5" +/- 1/2" high, resulting in a minimum of 1" overlap. This is probably a tiny bit too small, though I don't think this was the cause of most of the tipping we saw this year; I saw very few bumpers with a lower edge below 6" off the carpet on level ground.
• Field Reset is too difficult; timing is too tight: Yes, I get it. I don't know what to do about this one without modifying the game beyond recognition.
• Have dedicated scorekeepers in addition to referrees: in my mind, this falls on the "game execution committee" side. Sounds like a good idea, but (IMO) a bit outside the scope of this question.
• Eliminating rules based on intent: That would be a great place to take things in theory, but living in Louisiana (one of the two states with criminal code law, and the only one with civil code law in the U.S.), and having a brother who was killed by violence, I know directly that while rules based on objective conditions sound like a great idea, the results are less than stellar.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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-

[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?

[axiomofdarkness]

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.

I know there's at least one team in MAR who feeds exclusively from the brattice, though I forget which team it is.

[Joe Johnson]

Originally Posted by axiomofdarkness

I know there's at least one team in MAR who feeds exclusively from the brattice, though I forget which team it is.

Honestly, I had forgotten what the heck the brattice even was and had to look it up in the manual to refresh my memory.

Man, I AM getting old...

Dr. Joe J.

[thatprogrammer]

I would've removed audience selection. Also I'll echo the thoughts that the Sally and the Drawbridge should've been transparent. Honestly. this game has been absolutely amazing!

[RoboMom]

I am on the volunteer recruitment and management side of things. The role of field reset was very labor intensive this season, both in actual numbers needed as well as how hard it was physically. I know these factors led to delays at some events. I wish there had been a bit more recognition of this up front.

[Hitchhiker 42]

Originally Posted by thatprogrammer

I would've removed audience selection. Also I'll echo the thoughts that the Sally and the Drawbridge should've been transparent. Honestly. this game has been absolutely amazing!

Seems like towards the later competitions, sally, cheval, etc. were consistently chosen (to prevent walls in front of the drive team). Except in the finals, when everyone wanted the hard defenses.
I'm not sure what I'd do to amend this, but make it so the drawbridge and portcullis do get chosen more often.