Yes, I know this seems early but I seem to remember hearing that the GDC starts designing the game in summer. What do you think Would be good ideas to Include in a new game?
Tetra + Hanging. That would be awesome.
no just kidding. i really wanted a terrain change like the king of the hill game a couple years back
Do you mean elevation?
I’d like a game that requires less precision and has objects that are easier to pick up - not to make it easier, but to have more varied robots. I’ve been seeing that the recent games just want to make it hard to pick objects up, the result is a single most effective design that everyone uses.
I think a game with simpler objects and more field interaction will result in more interesting robot and complex strategies.
I would like to have a different terrain (ie. not all flat), Simpler game objects, and hanging\ladder.
Hm, that description sounds a lot like Round Up.
I’d like to see another game with a difficult, but almost unbeatable strategy (like goal-dumping in Round Up). That was the only year that a nuclear-option robot was very successful. I don’t see such a strategy in Sack Attack, and we also didn’t see one in Gateway.
Another challenge I’d like to see in a game is having alliances work very closely to complete a task. VEX has always required alliance coordination, but robots don’t generally have help each other directly.
Terrain is such a terrible thing in small scale robots. If its mild, ok its doable but extreme terrain I.E. 45 degree slopes of FTC Get Over it. Yeah… I didn’t like that game.
Cough cough 2W (world champs) cough cough. Also, while they were not as successful, 1107B.
I dont know how, but i would like to see some game where robots that walk get some sort of bonus, whether it be a score bonus or just some field advantage.
Um, 2W wasn’t unbeatable.
Yeah, and I don’t count them as a full nuclear-option robot because they relied very heavily on their ally to do the scoring. If they didn’t have a good ally, you could let them trap you in the isolation zone toward the end and you would still win. And 1107B wasn’t unbeatable either. Although I deeply admired their ingenuity, their robot also needed the right ally in order to succeed (a wallbot). 1107B and 2W together might have been almost unbeatable, but not on their own.
GER performed very well in the Round-Up season because their strategy permanently captured most of the goals, and if it even partially succeeded, it was mathematically unbeatable, allowing their robot to win solo. 575 tried to do something similar in Gateway (stacker and wallbot all in one), but it didn’t work out well for them.
I never said they were unbeatable, I just said that they were very extreme designs with a lot of great potential
I like the idea of something like a mix of bridge battle and clean sweep. Something where the point is simple but many designs are used
Whenever a new game comes out. I think everyone in VEX automatically starts going " Oh hey lets combines elements from X and Y game." It just seems to be a part of the culture. I do see why people do this, but I normally like to start clean strategize and then look for design inpiration.
If there was an almost unbeatable strategy, by half way through the year, everyone would know about it and build a robot to work in the same way, then it would be the robot if that was designed that was sliiiiightly better, or had the stronger team mate that would win (read: gateway). Imagine if only one team had come into gateway world champs with an NZ design, and everyone else had been using dual tank tread/claw bots. It is not that such designs don’t come about in the new games, it is just that with design convergence the way it is, this single robot would end up being the design for 1/2 the robots in the world.
As for this suggestion, everyone loves blaming team-mates, and this would just mean that good teams fall to the clawbot in the square next to them, rather than the opposition facing them. This sort of thing only works in the college game, where alliances are fixed, something to look forward to I guess ;).
You have just described Sack Attack.
There weren’t very many goal-dumpers in Round Up, and only one made the final round of Worlds. It should be something that is difficult to see in the game, and hard to pull off, but will pay off well if you can do it. A strategy that only works if you, as murdomeek would say, “do it right.”
How about something really outside the box. Multiple different game objects, multiple different ways to score them. Sack attack does a lot better job then most VEX games in the past. There are a good amount of ways to score them. But its a single game object, and it is very similar to an older game. Sorry to say it, but FTC beats VEX every time on unique game design.
Personally I would like to see a slight change to the game before Worlds. Like a month before worlds, and change is announced. Then you will see a true difference between people who just copy a design, and those who really know what they are doing.
Example: In Gateway (1 month before Worlds), make the middle goal instead of 30 inches high, make it 35 or 40 inches high. This wouldn’t have broken the game, but made it different enough that would have added an extra challenge that some teams would have succeed at.
Example: Round up. Add an extra 6 inches to half the goals on ground and wall.
I want to see dodeahedrel game pices