This being the first game I’ve been exposed to, I wouldn’t change a thing. That being said, I like reading the opinions in this thread.
This was the case in 2014 so I’m surprised that they have removed that ability.
I like most of the ideas people have posted so far, here’s a few of mine:
- Remove the limitation on how many balls robots can carry, and have more balls available on the field (see 2006)
- Remove the limitation on how many balls can be crossed over the defenses at once.
- Limit the bumper-zone range more to prevent wedge/tipping situations while flat on the ground with normal bumper contact.
- Allow attackers to shoot balls from the neutral zone (I have mixed feelings about what this would do to gameplay, but it might be interesting; perhaps just limit shooting in the zone to “passing” balls over defenses, but don’t allow them to be scored directly from the neutral zone.)
- Add a defender starting position in each teams secret passage and allow defensive autonomous (maintain existing rules protecting robots crossing defenses though)
This is probably the first video I’ve seen this season that was clearly an intentional tip deserving of a red card. This is the sort of thing that should be penalized, however, there are also many instances of accidental tipping that are penalized far too harshly.
I can understand a foul and maybe a yellow card as a warning to the team, but an automatic red card for a momentary contact tip is overkill. This video is an example of the standard that should be applied to red cards for tipping IMO.
In order to achieve a breach, there should be two options: 1. cross 4 of the defenses 3 times. 2. cross 5 of the defenses 2 times.
This would incentivize the crossing of a difficult defense.
I also like the idea of a defending robot in their courtyard to be able to shoot balls out of the courtyard. I think this adds more than it detracts.
I think there is a difference between running over a ball and controlling a ball. Penalties being called for running over a ball while controlling one, don’t make the game better. Yes, this may allow the occasional ball to enter under the low bar. However, herding or pushing a ball under the low bar, or a strategy of a human player jamming up a low bar should be penalized.
I also think the tower strength should increase from qualifications to eliminations, and with each level of eliminations.
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.
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!
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.
Some of this will be rehased from Chris is Me, Andy A, and a couple other brilliant posters in this thread, but I feel like adding my reasoning to a couple of these points.
-
Make the Sally Port and Drawbridge semi-transparent
I know the “wood” aesthetic was part of the game’s aesthetic, and that the vision challenges are technically interesting. However, I feel the consequences outweigh the benefits. Seeing drive teams miss balls, commit fouls, and general struggle across blind spots does not make for a great spectator experience. Further still, it makes the referees’ job harder in determining crossings. A visual design similar to the Portcullis would have been sufficient in conveying the medieval theme, while also allowing enough vision not to hamper the game. -
Make the batter dividers semi-visible
Ironically, the batter dividers are quite the opposite of the sally port and drawbridge. If they had a colored edge or other means of identifying their position, it would have greatly assisted drive teams without any real consequence elsewhere. -
Add a dedicated scorekeeper
While this isn’t strictly a GDC issue, it does tie in. Refs shouldn’t have to pull double duty as scorekeepers -
Clarify the secret passage rules
I wouldn’t necessarily change anything about the actual functionality regarding the secret passage, but raise your hand if you understood how the secret passage functioned the first time you read the game manual. How about the second time? It took most everyone a while, and there were plenty of teams that didn’t really understand its function at the events (particularly when it comes to passing balls in and out of each passage). I believe I saw a suggestion during build season to change the portion of the secret passage that touches the neutral zone to “secret entrance.” A change similar to that could have provided additional clarity. -
Change the game from “tower defense” to “tower assault”
Once again, a semantic change to the rules that would have provided a lot of clarity regarding FMS graphics, whos courtyard is whos, etc. -
Have the breach/capture serve as tie-breakers during qualifications.
In the case of a tie, if one alliance garnered a breach or capture while the other alliance did not, that alliance is named the winner. It’s only a tie if both alliances had the same amount of additional ranking points. -
Allow the referees to keep notes on matches/allow announcers to relay which penalties were committed
This was the most infuriating and confusing change on the year. I honestly don’t understand it at all.
And now for some weird ideas to try at your off-season (FMS permitting):
- Allow alliances to opt not to place a defense in a location, in exchange for additional tower strength on their tower. Any defense skipped already counts as damaged (both for point and breach purposes). Replace the missing defense with a flat panel* to prevent damage to the outerworks.
*Or the low bar panel without the low bar inserted
-
Add in 2 “flaming boulders” (orange balls) to the center of the field at the beginning of the match. These boulders are either worth 5 points each time they’re score, and/or end up doing 2 damage to the tower they’re scored in.
-
Add in a “hot goal” in autonomous (basically like 2014). Allow the low goal to be hot for extra fun.
I’ll have you know that 1712 never once committed a DOGMA penalty, TYVM. :mad:
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.
The moat is the closest we’ve gotten.
Be able to shoot from the neutral zone.
Reverse the opening side of the Sally Port. As in, instead of the hinge being on the attacker’s left, put it on the attacker’s right.
Any refs out there know how hard that door is to see a crossing on if you’re on the outerworks position…
Full court shooting from your own secret passage. I mean… that’s what the brattice is for right? 
Caveat: before any edits, this is all based on reading only OP, not any follow-up posts. At the risk of redundancy, let me plow ahead:
- After the one-dimensional challenge of Aerial Assist and the snoozer that was Recycle Rush, the bar was pretty low - and the GDC capitalized on that both literally and figuratively. (B’dup bup psssh)
- This was absolutely the best engineering challenge in my 4-1/2 years, and appears to be on the short list going all the way back to 1992. The low bar and the climb work against each other. High goal vs low goal is a real design question. Teams can earn exactly as many non-competitive ranking points as they can in competitive ranking points, giving the challenge both a “solid floor” as well as an “open ceiling”.
- Most of the good games are based on a current olympic, professional, or varsity sport. Stronghold was NOT. This makes it even more impressive that someone who walked in off the street could “get it” in fifty words: “You score a breach point by crossing four of those five defenses going towards the tower twice each, and a Tower capture point for putting eight boulders in the tower goals and getting three robots on the platform. Two more points for doing these things BETTER than the other alliance.”
- To find negative issues, I have to intentionally look for them. Most of them were handled in team updates; the remainder basically come down to inconsistent foul calls across events.
I definitely give the GDC an “A” this year.
Stronghold has been a very good game, but there are some tweaks I would make.
-
The scoring bar at the bottom quarter of the match feed should have been done differently. They should have had team numbers, score, defenses that alliance has breached and damage they have done to their opponents tower all on the same side. It was confusing and counter-intuitive to see red teams and red score on one side, and red defense/boulder count on the other.
-
(Spoiler, reading, fairly complicated change to game-play)
During just the playoffs, there should have been 2 new defenses available for selection: the “field” and the “keep”.
What are they?
The “field” as it’s name suggests is just a green flat surface robots drive across. Robots cannot damage the “field” and receive no points or contribution to a breach for crossing the “field” in both auto and teleop. The “keep” in historical terms, is the fortified central tower of a castle and last defensive resort. The “keep” in FRC Stronghold is a tall tower defense, place in the outer works, that is illegal to cross.
How do these two defenses work?
After each alliance has placed all their defenses, and before robots are placed on the field, each alliance then gets to place either a “field” for them to cross, or a “keep” to slow down the opposing alliance. Each alliance can place a “field” or “keep” on any defense except another “keep”, “field” or low bar. There can be BOTH a “keep” and a “field” in the same outer works. If this happens, that alliance will only be able to damage 3 defenses, and will NOT have the possibility of scoring the Breach bonus(20pts). The red alliance gets to place first, then blue.
Why do I think it’s a good idea?
One word, STRATEGY! This would make Stronghold playoffs the most strategically deep game in a while. This would affect many parts of the game:
A. Selecting defenses- Game theory now comes into play more as you have to guess if the other alliance is going to help themselves or slow you. The red alliance has the advantage of placing their “field/keep” anywhere and potentially blocking the other alliance from putting the opposite defense in that spot. High seeded red alliances must also determine if faster crossing is worth the possibility of no breach. Blue has the advantage of knowing what and where the red alliance placed their “field/keep” and countering, either as offense or defense.
B. Auto- The “field” increases an alliances auto possibilities. 2-ball autos and 2-ball-not-low-bar autos would be much more common. It also increases the chance of an alliance doing a double 2-ball auto. The “keep” hinders your opponents auto possibilities. A “keep” can be used to replace easily crossed defenses. It can be used to force opposing alliance robots to line up next to each other and risk messing up a 20 point auto. More importantly, the “keep” can force 1 of the 3 opposing bots to cross an active defense.
C. Teleop- The quick crossing of the “field” to increase shot count is huge. Two top tier shooters and alliances of 3 pretty good shooters could gain a big advantage. I could see some 1 and 2 alliances picking it even though the opponent could give them a “keep” and ruling out the possibility of the breach bonus. Top shooting alliances could more than make up for the 20 point breech deficit by shooting more boulders in auto and more cycles in teleop.
D. Endgame- The only way this affects endgame is the “field” can make last second rushes to the batter faster.
I know its kind of a complicated idea, thoughts, comments?
Oh god, can you tell me what match etc. so i can look up the youtube video. Or if you know the link to the video can you just post it, 
I’ve said this since week 3 to my team mates but we’ll see how others feel about this. I’d change the ranking point system slightly. This years ranking system was far better than just W-L-T, but it still caused some problems in Indiana in my opinion. Breaching became the guaranteed point for every match (only missed a few times in quals at IN DCMP). Capturing happened 79 out of 124 possible times (63.7%) at IN DCMP too. Much of the ranking system became a who has the best schedule (who can win the most) and caused some odd results.
Adding onto my issues with the ranking system, I thought we should add in the component of winning margin somehow. Odds are, the team that wins every match by 40 points is probably better than the robot that barely wins every match. A solution one of my team members had was adding another RP for every 30 points you won by (not joint, per match.). So if you won your match by 60 points, you added 2 more ranking points. If you won two matches by 45 points, you would not add the winning margins together to get 3 more RPs. It would be only 2 since each happened in a different match.
Finally, I think to get the capture ranking point, only your robot has to be on the batter. So in quals, if your tower strength was at 0 or less, you’d get the capture RP by your robot on the batter. So if in a match, an alliance wins and gets the breach, that is 3 RPs. The fourth RP gets added if your robot is on the batter. So if team A and Team B are on the batter and Team C rolls off, Team A and B would get 4 RPs for that match while Team C got 3 RPs for the match instead of all three teams getting only 3 RPs. This would not change anything for elims. You only get the 25 points if all three robots are on the batter at the end.
But this goes against ur complaint of teams just having lucky match schedules. What if a barely okay alliance went up against a super crappy alliance and won by 60 points. Does that mean they are a good alliance?
I definitely see your point but that is a one time scenario. The point of the winning margin RPs would be for teams that consistently win by 30 points or more. So say we stuck 2056 in a competition with a bunch of teams that can’t even shoot a boulder. Then the teams paired with 2056 who would win by at least 60 points a match would have a 1 time 2 RP bonus where 2056 would have a 10 time 2 RP bonus. Does that make sense? So schedule would still factor into this but the teams that are consistently better than the rest of the field should still end up at the top of the field by earning those extra winning margin RPs. Does that make sense?