How did you feel about Stronghold?

[centralrobotics]

Personally, it was my first year competing, but me and my team loved the competition this past year. Our alliance finished 8th place in the Lake Superior Regional. I thought the theme could effectively showcase our team's creativeness, along with the engineering and execution of ways to do well. I did feel that some of the obstacles were much too simple, as well as that the game got slow after all the defenses were breached. Overall, I loved this competition. How did you feel?

Robo Raiders
Team 4054
La Crosse, WI


2016 Regional Highlights --- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGV...Zw?spfreload=5

[qscgy]

I though that Stronghold was a pretty good game. The amount of abuse the robots take was a unique engineering challenge, and the low bar required prioritizing some things over others, or having creative ways of making things compact. Still, almost every team (at least in CHS) built a breaching/low goal robot that could fit under the low bar. If high goals were worth more (10 rather than 5, maybe), I think it would have led to more diversity of designs at the lower levels.
In comparison to other years, I maintain that Aerial Assist was better, but that's my personal opinion. Still, on my team at least, this was one of our best years in terms of engineering. We properly went through the design process, and built one of our best robots ever, according to mentors. Unfortunately, we lost a week and a half due to a blizzard, meaning that we had very little practice.

[Collin4564]

Originally Posted by qscgy

I though that Stronghold was a pretty good game. The amount of abuse the robots take was a unique engineering challenge, and the low bar required prioritizing some things over others, or having creative ways of making things compact. Still, almost every team (at least in CHS) built a breaching/low goal robot that could fit under the low bar. If high goals were worth more (10 rather than 5, maybe), I think it would have led to more diversity of designs at the lower levels.
In comparison to other years, I maintain that Aerial Assist was better, but that's my personal opinion. Still, on my team at least, this was one of our best years in terms of engineering. We properly went through the design process, and built one of our best robots ever, according to mentors. Unfortunately, we lost a week and a half due to a blizzard, meaning that we had very little practice.

I would agree that this game was good, but 2014 was better. Hopefully, next year's game is as good as Stronghold and nothing at all like the awful recycle rush.

[TheMilkman01]

Originally Posted by Collin4564

Hopefully, next year's game is as good as Stronghold and nothing at all like the awful recycle rush.

I don't know what you're talking about, Recycle Rush was totes awesome. That game was the G.O.A.T. Just stacks and stacks of fun. /s

[Trevor1523]

I'm gonna get a ton of flack for this but I enjoyed Recycle Ru$h more.

Maybe it was because we had a better robot for 2015 but I'm not sure.

Another thing that made this game a pain was how difficult it was to scout, and how specific the rules were. It was so easy to get a foul this year that it really ruined the game for me.

[GreyingJay]

I think Recycle Rush was a more interesting engineering challenge. However, it was pretty boring to watch.

[Mr. Tatorscout]

[quote=Trevor1523;1583346] It was so easy to get a foul this year that it really ruined the game for me.[/QUOTE

Gotta wonder if anyone else agrees that it was easy to get a foul. I think the tators got one a few time the entire year. Which foul was easy to get?

[RoboChair]

People talking about fouls this year don't remember the fouls from 2014 >_>

Those 50 point tech fouls for humans being humans...

[Trevor1523]

[quote=Mr. Tatorscout;1583368]

Originally Posted by Trevor1523

It was so easy to get a foul this year that it really ruined the game for me.[/QUOTE

Gotta wonder if anyone else agrees that it was easy to get a foul. I think the tators got one a few time the entire year. Which foul was easy to get?

Our driver was new this year, so that probably had something to do with it. It was mostly at Orlando from us playing defence.

EDIT: I also don't remember 2014 all that well, so I guess that's my reasoning.

[cadandcookies]

Originally Posted by RoboChair

People talking about fouls this year don't remember the fouls from 2014 >_>

Those 50 point tech fouls for humans being humans...

Yeah, I remember 2014 being significantly worse on the fouls front that this year. 2016 is worse than 14 because of fouls is a funny argument to me.

This was almost certainly my favorite game that I've been directly involved with. 2013 loses out only because of the cool strategic layer that changeable defences brought to the game. So, I feel pretty darn good about Stronghold.

[spydan]

I thought this year has been the best/most interesting FRC season I have been a part of. The quantity of different activities a robot had the option of doing (between the defenses, boulders, and scaling) was awesome. Every match looked different. For example, in 2014, every match was: get the ball, pass it, throw over the truss, pass, score, over and over and over; it got boring after a few matches. This season, I enjoyed watching robots being sometimes challenged to cross the defenses and the rush for the endgame. I also liked the theming, I would enjoy seeing a Stronghold II with the same theme but different objectives in the future.

[GeeTwo]

Exciting game, good engineering challenge, good strategic challenge, great theme, standards, flying balls, tortugas.

Poor visibility, damage causing field delays, contrived, loosely defined rules that overloaded many of the the referees.

Four and a half smiles.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by RoboChair

People talking about fouls this year don't remember the fouls from 2014 >_>

Those 50 point tech fouls for humans being humans...

I agree, fouls were determining match outcomes in 2014, whereas when they did influence the result this year, it was usually a 5-10 point swing and the fouls were largely justified. Too many teams didn't pay attention to the rules about being protected in the outerworks and leaving before the last 20 seconds.

And 2013 was worse for fouls, on loading discs among others. There were also more red cards in 2013. We were involved in at least 3 incidents in elims in 2013 and our experience wasn't unique. This year the only one I saw directly was during the Newton final.

[Koko Ed]

Loved it! Want more!
Can't wait to see it payed at IRI!

[nuclearnerd]

Good:

• The GDC obviously spent a lot of time working on the difficulty curve of Stronghold. The capped-bonus challenges of breaching and capturing meant that lower-tier robots could contribute meaningfully, but higher tier robots couldn't run away with the points. Matches were often won by just a few points, even when the "strength" was lopsided.
• The field looked really impressive from the stands
• The defenses added a really tough, new engineering challenge after a few years of drive train stagnation
• The secret passage "tagging" rules were pretty cool. Sadly most teams didn't go into the secret passage much, but I feel like a slight rule change could have made it interesting (not sure how right now)

Bad:

• Little meaningful interaction between teams. Except for robots who held doors for eachother (rarely), and the race to the batter, the matches were almost always "6 robots do 6 things". That gets really boring from a strategic (and spectator) point of view. Instead of looking for interesting new gameplay, you're watching to see who screws up their part. Contrast that with 2014, where new strategies were still being innovated on Einstein. I fear that this will always be the case as teams pressure the GDC to choose games with lots of game pieces so their performance doesn't depend on others.
• The rules on defense were too onerous. I understand their reasoning, but the result was basically to kill any meaningful defense, and all of the associated game dynamics. When defense was attempted, it usually led to fouls (interfering with a crossing, or not clearing the courtyard in time).
• The field was *really* expensive to build. Take it from a team that built a community practice field.
• I would argue there were *too many* engineering challenges. I personally prefer games with fewer required mechanisms so that we can focus on getting those few working really well, without sacrificing capability. Others will disagree with me though.