I just wanted to start off by saying that I am NOT criticizing the game design committee. Honest! If you've attended a tournament and watched 60 or more matches, you know a lot more about the game than the GDC did when they wrote the rules.

I'll start: The bonus points might be adjusted to give more value to the bonus cube, autonomous and "king of the hill" and less to goal capping. At Vancouver, the platform was mostly ignored and the cube rarely got flipped.

I might try:

Autonomous: require robots to start in their colored tiles. "No robot shall touch any non-colored part of the field at the start of the match." It's too easy to put one wheel on the colored matt while positioning a scoring tool aimed at the 15" goal. All autonomous meant in a lot of cases was "turning on a motor to score."

While making autonomous more difficult, increase the autonomous bonus to 10 or even 15 points. It should be hard, and have big rewards.

Scoring:

1 point per cube in the high and low goals.
3 point bonus for being the highest cube in a high goal
5 point bonus for the bonus cube
15 point bonus for being "king of the hill"

My favorite thing about Elevation is that it rewards driving skill, mobility, speed and programming. Building a big steel box with a grabber doesn't win this event. "Quad Quandry" was largely a blocking and tackling game, this is one for soccer players." I think it's a lot of fun to watch.

My least favorite thing: The endless parade of double-tank-tread-cube lifters. Is this true everywhere or just in Vancouver?

Thoughts?

A few additional points... also in the spirit of constructive feedback.

All autonomous meant in a lot of cases was "turning on a motor to score.

In addition to being easy, this strategy is also difficult to defend against. The opposing alliance needs to ram the aligned robot out of position (and probably give up their own scoring opportunity in the process). That said, the approach IS limited to a 6 point score and therefore can be beaten by a reliable two goal strategy (12 points). On balance, I agree with Rick and would suggest that no points be given for cubes placed in the 15" goals adjacent to the start position during autonomous period.

The endless parade of double-tank-tread-cube lifters.

Cube retrieval is not dissimilar to ring retrieval from last year. I think a lot of veteran teams are starting from the same base-point with their design. Also, here in Vancouver, the proximity of some teams to each other makes what might be called 'design synergy' particularly likely. Lastly, it is early in the season. Design ideas are likely to evolve... we should wait until later in the season to pronounce final judgement on this.

the platform was mostly ignored and the cube rarely got flipped…

Point systems are a clear and unequivocal way to communicate values. The fact that an owned goal is worth 6 pts and both the cube and the platform are only worth 5pts is probably also contributing to design uniformity. Everyone is designing to score goals and not to flip cubes or climb platforms.
From a spectator perspective, this is too bad. One of the best parts of “Hangin-a-Round” was the end of game melee to get off the ground. I too would support adjusting the point count for both the bonus cube and the platform to make it more worthwhile for teams to design to those objectives.

My 2 cents (currently 1.65 cents in US currency)
lbb

I just wanted to make sure that everyone understood that I know Elevation is the game we are playing, and it's a good one. Musing, reflection, and "having ideas" are -- in my opinion -- ways to better inform the future. This thread is a sandbox for talking things over, not a criticism or manifesto.

...autonomous scoring.... That said, the approach IS limited to a 6 point score and therefore can be beaten by a reliable two goal strategy (12 points). On balance, I agree with Rick and would suggest that no points be given for cubes placed in the 15" goals adjacent to the start position during autonomous period.

If it is easy for all four teams to earn 6 points apiece in their nearby goals, this is already like awarding zero points to each alliance, so no change forcing them to try for the other goals is necessary....

On the other hand, you could look at it this way. Teams who aren't doing well in autonomous yet will earn 0 or 5 points. Average teams should score 6 points in auto. Better than average teams should rack up 10, 15 or maybe 20 points. There are spare cubes available and there are lines and walls to follow. There is a platform to climb. Putting cubes into goals (instead of climbing the platform) has the obvious advantage of creating semi-persistent points and of deciding how much room to leave in the goal for subsequent scoring.

So, There seems to be plenty of room for the autonomous period's excitement and strategy to evolve. It also seems nice that a rookie team has a fairly simple autonomous objective they can put into their initial designs.

...Cube retrieval is not dissimilar to ring retrieval from last year. I think a lot of veteran teams are starting from the same base-point with their design. ... Design ideas are likely to evolve... we should wait until later in the season to pronounce final judgment on this.

I agree. Watching the PP Championship webcast, in the finals I was starting to see teams run out of easily acquired cubes. In part because the goals were being filled up and in part because teams would horde or eject opposing cubes. So, I'm guessing that by the time we get to the World championship, needing to quickly retrieve the autoloader cubes and needing to be able to pluck cubes out of goals will both start to cause some of the tank tread designs to get relegated to the dustbin.

Also, as goals fill, and as 3" cubes become scarce, the bonus cube, the autonomous bonus, and the platform will become a bit more attractive. I can envision matches in which each alliance has staked out "their" 4 goals that they control and defend up until the last seconds when they sprint for the platform. In a match like that, having the bonus cube on your own turf would be handy.

Don't declare Elevation boring yet (I almost did but the PP matches changed my mind). :)

Blake

I think that Elevation is a great game - easily the best game that "small robots" (FVC, FTC, VRC) have done.

Like Bridge Battle, it is easy for the audience to get a good idea who is winning (count goal ownership).

Better than Bridge Battle, it is easy for the lead to change - scores go back and forth as a match progresses.

I think point values are just about right - including the autonomous bonus - make that too big and the match is over before drivers grab the sticks. You want a more challenging autonomous? Get 2, 3 or 4 goals - that should keep you busy...

Just about the only thing I'd change is that I'd make the goal's tape white (or perhaps yellow) so that spectators can see them easier.

Thank you Vex game design!

-Mr. Van
Coach, Robodox

@Raspinudo Make autonomous not ridiculously easy. At my last competition, teams would place their arm resting on the goal with blocks preloaded, then their autonomous would simply turn the motors. BOOM, ten points for them. Real Challenging...>.>

This isn't a knock on the creators though, it was not foreseeable, I just believe it should be altered before the WC.

This was not unintentional. There is a low hurdle that teams of all types can take advantage of... but...

If you think that will be a WINNING autonomous mode at the World Championship you will likely be surprised.

I just came from a match where teams tried to do that. The opposing teams had "streaker bots" that they would aim at the "dunker". In most cases the "streaker" was able to get there and knock the "dunker" off enough to block the score.

I'd like to see the rest of the white lines to the goals. We are doing a line track, but we also can get snagged since it goes in front of the other team. It would be nice to be able to follow the lines on the off side.

@kingswin82 I would make the playing field bigger than 12ft. by 12ft. There just isn't enough space for 4 robots, the platform, bonus cube and all the other cubes laying around. Possibly 16ft. by 16ft?

By using 4 extra perimeter panels you can certainly create a 16x16' field, but you can create quite a few other interesting shapes too.

I hope the GDC is listening.

Blake

@gblake By using 4 extra perimeter panels you can certainly create a 16x16' field, but you can create quite a few other interesting shapes too.

There would be a lot to be said for a 12x16 field with the teams on opposing ends, officials on one long side, and the spectators on the other long side. Just saying...

Good point, Technic. Adding one more 4-foot section shouldn't be that expensive, though.