Round Up Unintended Gameplay

not sure im in suppose to say this…
but how many of you think that round up was the best game yet? (strategy, field dynamics, movable bases, under the ladder,descore, ect, ect)
well it was that great because the GDC messed something up last second…
if they didnt mess up, the game would only be half as god as it was…

what did they mess up? and personally i personally think elevation was the best just saying

1 Like

im not sure if im allowed to say this lol
(ill double check)
lets just say, half the strategies that teams were using would have been eliminated if it didnt “mess up”

1 Like

Was it descoring



Was it picking up the movable goals? Or putting them under the ladder?

I split off this weird side discussion from this thread:

I’m enjoying this talk about “what people want to see in next year’s game” and this side-bar about what the GDC “screwed up” in Round Up was distracting me…

In ALL games there are SOME aspects of the gameplay which we don’t FULLY anticipate – some games more than others. Not sure who Murdomeek has been talking to or what aspect of the game he’s referencing.

I will say there are some times during the game design discussions where the committee says: “We don’t know exactly which way this blahblahblah will go, but either way the game will play out fine.”



I thought elevation was a really boring game. Plus square game objects in triangle goals.

Round Up though had a major flaw, the ladder. The ladder was way too challenging to go up comparison to the points it was worth. If teams had been completely untouchable while trying to lift, you would have seen a lot more teams trying it. Also it took way to long, as teams could descore so many points while someone was trying to go up the ladder.

I would disagree actually. In general it may not have been worth it, but if you took the time to design hanging capabilities into your robot that could do so in under 10 seconds then it was worth it. The best examples of this are 1103 and 254D but there were definitely others. And generally, if you have a fast and capable hanging device, you can avoid getting knocked off while hanging.

Pre-scored tubes on wall goal posts might have been unanticipated.
I sketched out a robot arm that could score the other wall goal, without driving, but never built one.
I have a similar sketch for VRCC, with similar likelihood of implementation.

Picking up goals might have been unanticipated, particularly picking up 4 per robot.

haha, sorry it came out that way
that wasnt what i ment, the GDC spents lots of time and energy into future games and i appreciate that :slight_smile:

well, from what i have heard, the ladder wasnt suppose to have the weird angle, which was suppose to make hanging easier! (but teams still managed to figure out a way!) in the original plan, the ladder was suppose to have some sort of lexan wall around the bottom to PREVENT tubes and movable bases getting trapped in the ladder (prevent easily doing that)

there were some last second “changes” to the ladder in the manufacturing stage because someone thought the ladder would look “nicer” this way :wink:

however, if it wasnt for the change, almost half the strategies (and the whole green eggs robot!) would not have taken place at all.

thats just my opinion and i apologies again if it came out the wrong way

mods, if this information is wrong/not allowed to post, then please comment/edit at your will


read ^

i also disagree
if it was such a “flaw” how come teams still did it?
maybe it wasnt worth it in a “normal” game, but if you are up against some strategies that starved you of tubes and/or goals, the hanging would be well worth it

if you got the autonomous bonus and two High hanging robots, thats 50 guaranteed points right there

I was talking about this with a couple of the other AURA guys yesterday, and we were saying that appropriately rewarding hanging on the ladder was always going to be difficult for the GDC. On the one hand, they had to provide enough incentive to do it, but on the other hand they had to make sure that they weren’t giving away too many points (or as we said, make it imba or OP). Ultimately, I think the numbers that they arrived at were probably well thought out, but were possibly a little bit too low.

As to what murdomeek says above, if what he says is right then yes, it would have removed a lot of strategies. A lot of people (myself included) called dumping goals (and to a certain extent rings) under the ladder the “game breaker” (it certainly helped teams dominate in the college division at least, where descoring had less of an impact because there were way more rings and goals) - this obviously would no longer have been possible if there was the lexan blocking objects. It would have also made hanging from the side like most New Zealand teams did a lot more difficult as well.

1 Like

If there was a lexan wall going up around the ladder, I think that it would have made hanging easier. That way, a robot could lean against it while going up (assuming a side hang) and not fall inside the ladder.

It’s funny how even when they first designed it, the ladder was never really meant to be climbed up on the rungs the way you’d expect someone to climb a ladder.

If there was a lexan plate covering the sides of the ladder, what about the rung faces? I can’t imagine a ladder where it’s just a pyramid with lexan sides. I’m thinking there were still gaps there, and maybe a place to dump goals.

This is true. I saw Green Eggs dump goals over the shortest rung plenty of times.

im sure green eggs or whoever will still think of a way except dropping a 10lbs goal from 10" might be “damaging the field elements”
they might have to “gently lower it down” somehow

so did we…

i personally think elevation was the best just saying

Elevation was too easy. Had people been more experienced, it would have been played as quickly and easily as Gateway is now.