Better or worse?

[Kevin_Leonard]

Would FIRST Power Up be better or worse if:

1. There were no restrictions on launching
2. The switches were worth the same points as the scale
3. Cubes in the scale were worth 5 points, cubes in your switch were worth 2 points, and cubes in your opponent’s switch were worth -2 points
4. The cubes were heavier
5. Boost and Force lasted longer
6. Boost and Force did both the switch and scale regardless of # of cubes but the duration was based on the # of cubes

Answer these and add your own what-ifs

[JohnSchneider]

@Kevin Leonard

Would FIRST Power Up be better or worse if:

1. There were no restrictions on launching

2. The switches were worth the same points as the scale

3. Cubes in the scale were worth 5 points, cubes in your switch were worth 2 points, and cubes in your opponent’s switch were worth -2 points

4. The cubes were heavier

5. Boost and Force lasted longer

6. Boost and Force did both the switch and scale regardless of # of cubes but the duration was based on the # of cubes

Answer these and add your own what-ifs

Force should have been removed and replaced with a power up that reads:

When you have 3 cubes in the vault, you unlock a purple super-cube that weighs twice(3x ?) as much as a yellow cube. This cube can be introduced into play above the vault.
The problem with force is that you can only use it when behind and it doesnt gain you anything meaningful for the cost. With this, you can get back on the scale/switch but there’s still meaningful challenge in it. Very cost-reward intensive.

[dmorewood]

In my opinion, the GDC has done a terrific job with this year’s game in all aspects, except maybe penalties. The penalties for launching and touching the scale need to be relaxed. I understand why they’re included, but they’re excessively called. For example, a more reasonable ruling on touching of the scale would be, “If your robot moves the scale in your favor = FOUL.” Robots are being called for incidental contact with the scale where they barely bump it and don’t change the ownership of the scale. I’ve seen several teams receive red cards for incidental contact of the scale where they barely brush it but it wobbles enough for the ref to feel the need to penalize the action. To be fair this was after 2 warnings and a yellow car but it feels silly to have such a strict ruling. Let the teams play the game, fouls are only supposed to be there to help facilitate fair play.

[Zook]

@Kevin Leonard

Would FIRST Power Up be better or worse if:

1. There were no restrictions on launching

2. The switches were worth the same points as the scale

3. Cubes in the scale were worth 5 points, cubes in your switch were worth 2 points, and cubes in your opponent’s switch were worth -2 points

4. The cubes were heavier

5. Boost and Force lasted longer

6. Boost and Force did both the switch and scale regardless of # of cubes but the duration was based on the # of cubes

Answer these and add your own what-ifs

1. Worse: throw a cube from across the room at your robot’s control system area and see how you like it.
2. Aren’t they already? 1pt/s [ah, you mean including opponent switch]
3. Worse: there are already some blowout matches (400 to 30), I think this would only make those more embarrassing for the losing team. And then if you have the only scale bot in a match you’re practically guaranteed the win. [OP intended static points per cube rather than pt/s increases… oops]
4. See 1
5. Better, but maybe 15s
6. Neutral: I don’t think the game would be better or worse, just require less strategizing

[pkrishna3082]

@Kevin Leonard

Would FIRST Power Up be better or worse if:

[ol]
[li]There were no restrictions on launching
[/li][li]The switches were worth the same points as the scale
[/li][li]Cubes in the scale were worth 5 points, cubes in your switch were worth 2 points, and cubes in your opponent’s switch were worth -2 points
[/li][li]The cubes were heavier
[/li][li]Boost and Force lasted longer
[/li][li]Boost and Force did both the switch and scale regardless of # of cubes but the duration was based on the # of cubes
[/li][/ol]
Answer these and add your own what-ifs

1. [li] Better but potentially more dangerous – probably need taller walls/netting
   [/li][li] Worse. As in, controlling opponent switch gave them points?
   [/li][li] Better, and could potentially make 2 tolerable
   [/li][li] Better but would make shooting harder. Maybe 50% heavier, not much more than that.
   [/li][li] Worse, I don’t think they should swing the match too much.
   [/li][li] Better, double boost and single force don’t make a lot of sense right now.
   [/li]

What if…

[LIST=7]
[li] You could remove power cubes from your plates?
[/li][li] You could remove power cubes from any plate, but null territory penalty remains (and some similar thing for the switches)?
[/li][li] You could activate the power ups four times total, but a cap of two of each power up? So you could do boost twice and levitate twice, while skipping force. Or force once, boost once, and levitate twice. Etc. Not sure how cubes would be managed in that scenario.
[/li][li] Single and double levitate did something (ideas?)
[/li][/LIST]

[chadr03]

The only thing I would change is to add a perimeter around the switches that is about a cube length away and allow launching if any part of your robot or the cube you are carrying is crossing the line. I’ve seen way to many penalties on robots that seem to be playing the game as intended but might not have their bumpers touching the switch.

[Kevin_Leonard]

@Zook

1. Worse: throw a cube from across the room at your robot’s control system area and see how you like it.
2. Aren’t they already? 1pt/s
3. Worse: there are already some blowout matches (400 to 30), I think this would only make those more embarrassing for the losing team. And then if you have the only scale bot in a match you’re practically guaranteed the win.
4. See 1
5. Better, but maybe 15s
6. Neutral: I don’t think the game would be better or worse, just require less strategizing

@2- no, the scale is worth points regardless of who controls it, my opponent’s switch is only worth points for my opponent
@3- I think letting cubes be worth points instead of points/second would reduce the # of blowout matches. Right now if you’re behind by one cycle, you control the scale for none of the match

@pkrishna

1. You could remove power cubes from your plates?

2. You could remove power cubes from any plate, but null territory penalty remains (and some similar thing for the switches)?

3. You could activate the power ups four times total, but a cap of two of each power up? So you could do boost twice and levitate twice, while skipping force. Or force once, boost once, and levitate twice. Etc. Not sure how cubes would be managed in that scenario.

4. Single and double levitate did something (ideas?)

1. Better, or at least different. It would certainly add another thing to design for
2. Not sure I totally understand
3. Worse
4. Better- maybe single levitate gives you a park, double levitate gives you two parks, with no maximum on # of parks?

[Kevin_Leonard]

@JohnSchneider

Force should have been removed and replaced with a power up that reads:

When you have 3 cubes in the vault, you unlock a purple super-cube that weighs twice(3x ?) as much as a yellow cube. This cube can be introduced into play above the vault.
The problem with force is that you can only use it when behind and it doesnt gain you anything meaningful for the cost. With this, you can get back on the scale/switch but there’s still meaningful challenge in it. Very cost-reward intensive.

I like this one a lot. It would also add in another thing to design for (heavier cubes would be harder to hold in the roller-friction power cube claws many of us have), and make the fact that the scale is weight-based more interesting

[3072Cap]

@Kevin Leonard

@2- no, the scale is worth points regardless of who controls it, my opponent’s switch is only worth points for my opponent

But your switch is only worth points for you. They are worth the same…

Could you imagine the lead of an alliance during a game if you owned all 3 switches for 20 seconds under your proposal? 60 points vs 40 points in the current system. Sure it may help teams catch up, but if you get down too much, the game would be COMPLETELY out of reach. I like the way it is now. More strategic than just “take everything”

[lynca]

@dmorewood

In my opinion, the GDC has done a terrific job with this year’s game in all aspects, except maybe penalties. The penalties for launching and touching the scale need to be relaxed.

Agreed, launching fouls are excessive and unnecessarily harsh.

Launching fouls should be 10 points or less.

[Drakxii]

@Kevin Leonard

Would FIRST Power Up be better or worse if:

1. There were no restrictions on launching

2. The switches were worth the same points as the scale

3. Cubes in the scale were worth 5 points, cubes in your switch were worth 2 points, and cubes in your opponent’s switch were worth -2 points

4. The cubes were heavier

5. Boost and Force lasted longer

6. Boost and Force did both the switch and scale regardless of # of cubes but the duration was based on the # of cubes

Answer these and add your own what-ifs

2,3, and 5 would make it worse. Not sure 4 would change much but just put more load on bots/kids. 6 could make it better but would need balancing.

As is 1 would make it worse, but I think allowing launching anywhere within the auto-lines would make the game better.

My own what-if is would the game be better if all fouls were only 10 points instead of 25 and 5?

[tindleroot]

Would FIRST Power up be better or worse if:

The owner of the scale (and/or switches) when the match ends gets additional points, say, 25?

Since alliances often have one free robot while the other two climb (or a single climber while the other two park), it would give those robots purpose and it would allow an alliance behind on scale control to make up some ground during the precious final seconds of the match.

[pkrishna3082]

@pkrishna3082

1. You could remove power cubes from your plates?

2. You could remove power cubes from any plate, but null territory penalty remains (and some similar thing for the switches)?

@Kevin Leonard

1. Better, or at least different. It would certainly add another thing to design for
2. Not sure I totally understand

Sorry for the confusion. I meant for 1 that you can only remove cubes from your own plates (for example, blue alliance can only remove from blue alliance plates, but if there’s cubes on the red side, blue cannot remove those). So if you have 5v2 on your switch and need another cube in the scale, you can grab it off the switch on your side (leaving 4v2) and place in the switch.

For 2 I meant that you can grab from any plate (blue can grab from red or blue plates); however, the null territory remains. So if you are on blue and in the process of stealing from red, they can come and touch you for a tech foul.

@tindleroot

Would FIRST Power up be better or worse if:

The owner of the scale (and/or switches) when the match ends gets additional points, say, 25?

Since alliances often have one free robot while the other two climb (or a single climber while the other two park), it would give those robots purpose and it would allow an alliance behind on scale control to make up some ground during the precious final seconds of the match.

I think it would probably be better. For sure it would make the last seconds more exciting whereas normally it would be 2 robots climbing and 1 waiting or filling vault. However it would probably remove the excitement of the triple climbs, if that alliance isn’t waaayy in the lead on the scale.

[mikeb3173]

I like #6, it would make a vault/switch robot with faster cycles more valuable.

[Sjtumlin16]

I think it’d be interesting if teams were allowed to use power ups during auto. It would change auton stratagy, because if you can get cubes in the exchange fast enough during auto, that could mean you could get 4 Pts./s on switch, scale, or maybe even both (assuming another team scores on the plates).

[pkrishna3082]

@Sjtumlin16

I think it’d be interesting if teams were allowed to use power ups during auto. It would change auton stratagy, because if you can get cubes in the exchange fast enough during auto, that could mean you could get 4 Pts./s on switch, scale, or maybe even both (assuming another team scores on the plates).

Having one team score in the switch while another puts one cube in for a single boost would be a really interesting strategy.

[Kevin_Leonard]

Re: Power Ups in auto- I like it. Just another layer of strategy that makes low level autos more valuable while also making multi-cube vault autos a valuable thing.
Re: Ending the game owning things gave you a bonus- I also like this idea. As is, sometimes our robot has nothing useful to do during the last 15-20 seconds of the match.

Game Design is interesting.

[Nick.kremer]

@JohnSchneider

Force should have been removed and replaced with a power up that reads:

When you have 3 cubes in the vault, you unlock a purple super-cube that weighs twice(3x ?) as much as a yellow cube. This cube can be introduced into play above the vault.
The problem with force is that you can only use it when behind and it doesnt gain you anything meaningful for the cost. With this, you can get back on the scale/switch but there’s still meaningful challenge in it. Very cost-reward intensive.

This a really neat idea.

[Bryce2471]

1. Better
2. Worse
3. Worse
4. meh
5. Worse
6. Better

[FrisbeeFunTime]

1. This would create the issue of teams both building much more powerfull launchers and shooting from the platform zone which means they would be shooting towords the outside of the field. More powerfull launchers coupled with team shooting from the platform zone could easily lead to someone getting hit

2. I quite like what they have now, it seems to be working very well.

3. Would this be instead of gaining points for ownership, if so then it would make the game entirely different and worse imo. I do like the ownership points design, I feel like other rules would have to change in order for just points being awarded for where game pieces are placed to make the game good, such as the allowence for teams to take cubes off the scale and switch.

4. I think it would make this game a lot worse as getting cubes up to the scale would be a lot harder, depending on how much mroe weight we are talking. I have a feeling we’d see a lot more tipped robots with heavier cuibes.

5. I believe that this would make the game worse. I personally think that longer powerups would result in people being much more frustrated with the game. I really like the idea that JohnSchneider had, I like the idea of 'trading" game pieces for upgraded game pieces.

6. I think this could work but I don’t think it would make powerup and better or worse.