fundamental flaw with GDC?

[antoineft]

Before I start this post, I just want to say that I know the GDC (Game Design Committee) has an incredibly difficult task each year in trying to please so many of the brightest minds on the planet. They should be applauded for the amazing job that they do. What I’m about to propose was already slightly started in this thread http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76339&highlight=GDC however I would like to take it a step further.

As I understand it, the GDC is purposely composed entirely of individuals who are not directly involved with any specific team. This is kind of like getting a group of the best car designers in the world together to design a great car, but then making sure they never drive it! Anyone else see a slight flaw here? Wouldn’t it be beneficial to have people involved right from the start who are looking at the game from a builders/players perspective?


The Proposition: FIRST appoints a GAME APPROVAL COMMITTEE (GAC) sounds cool to say eh ;)
- A select group of 5-10 experienced FIRST mentors who may or may not be currently on a team would get full disclosure about the upcoming game
- This committee would be involved early on and would be able to modify the final product or possibly even help in development
- Each member would be approved by they GDC
- These individuals would sign a non-disclosure agreement about any details related to the game
- The GAC is banned from pre-designing their own teams robot, of course they will have ideas, but they are not to draw or CAD up anything. They can be trusted with this on the basis of Gracious Professionalism
- Even with the above point, these mentors will provide an advantage to their team even if they don’t speak about it until after kick-off… my take on this is so what? I would gladly give this advantage to 5-10 teams in FIRST so that the other 1,700 teams have a richer experience! I mean the beta teams this year had the new controller months ahead of the rest of us and did anyone notice a problem there? I didn’t.


Who is on the GAC?
I’m not really the one to make the call on this one, but here’s some thoughts I had:
1) The GDC chooses, much like the beta teams were chosen to test the cRIO this past year
2) I like this one --> Each team in the finals on Einstein from the previous year (6 teams total) as an added reward would send one of their team mentors. Can you imagine how that would have played out this year? it would mean that the game would have been approved and tweaked by Karthik Kanagasabapathy (team 1114), Paul Copioli (team 217), and JVN (team 148)… wow, I can only imagine!


I’m a big fan of the game this year, but I think there were some real issues with some of the rules that detracted from the overall game experience, and after talking with people at some of the regionals, I know I’m not alone in these thoughts. And I’m pretty sure having a GAC in place as proposed would have made the necessary changes before kick-off.

As with any year though, FIRST never really has a bad year, its one of the most amazing experiences you’ll ever have and we’re always coming back for more!

Anybody willing to back this idea?

[JesseK]

As I understand it, the GDC is purposely composed entirely of individuals who are not directly involved with any specific team. This is kind of like getting a group of the best car designers in the world together to design a great car, but then making sure they never drive it! Anyone else see a slight flaw here? Wouldn’t it be beneficial to have people involved right from the start who are looking at the game from a builders/players perspective?

This isn't true. Dave Lavery is involved with Epsilon Delta, team 116. There are a couple of posts on here that allude to the relationship, and at kickoff this year Dave also told a story about how he and his team got started with FIRST. I don't really know to what extent he's involved (i.e. is he build lead, electrical, admin, does he attend every meeting, etc), but I don't think that really matters either.

Other than that, a GAC sounds like a decent idea. I'd say we allow only a small additional committee comprised of WFA winners and a random variety of senior mentors (5+ yrs experience, or whatever) review the rules. NDA's would be attached, of course, and I'm not suggesting the everyone review all rules -- actually I think it would be less hassle and run smoother if:

- Small sub components (e.g. bumpers) of the robot were reviewed independently for clarity, via a small 3-5 person group.
- The committee would be given a draft of the rules pertaining to the component, the intent of the rules, and all requirements that the rules are supposed to meet.
- The rules could be verified for clarity so they meet intent and requirements.
- The purpose of the committee would be to help reduce the confusion in the way some teams interpret the rules. This will be successful so long as the sub committee comes from a variety of teams rather than a small region of teams,

[Uberbots]

i think your main point here (GDC consists of people that are mostly uninvolved) is kind of untrue and rather insulting; as jessieK said dave is a prime counterexample to this. It would be unfair not to say that everyone else on that committee is either heavily involved or was heavily involved with mentoring a team. How do you think they got there?

And hey, we have the best GAC here- CheifDelphi. i'm betting you more than half the revisions to the set of rules over the years have resulted in contradictions found by the mentors and students who visit this site. Sure the process occurs later than your proposed GAC, but the collective minds of the thousands of people here and elsewhere are much more prone to finding loopholes and bugs than a group of 5-10 privileged people.

[Rich Kressly]

In one way or another, what you're already asking for, exists. While some of it may not be "formal" much of what you're asking for exists. Between FIRST staff members involved and the volunteer GDC - many of whom are a part of or have been a part of FRC teams - games get scrutinized, reviewed, etc. Does that always result in what we want as individuals - no way. Is it a perfect system? - nope. Is it an incredibly difficult and multi-faceted task? You betcha!

Please be careful about what you may think a GDC can/cannot influence. It's not always very cut and dried as to what a GDC can control as opposed to what the FIRST organization, or more specifically in this case, the FRC program decides upon/controls. This year, for instance, control system issues are not necessarily game/GDC issues at all.

On a side note, I had the opportunity to serve on the "old" F(V)TC GDC with both JVN and Karthik - how cool, indeed!

[SuperJake]

I like that every year the members of the GDC walk around and talk with teams about what they liked and disliked about the game. It is a great way to express your opinion about the game and add ideas for improvements to future games.

This exists on a community level here on CD to some extent. The only problem in a forum this open is that once a thread reaches a certain size, inevitably if falls off track and becomes useless.

The problem with small committees is that they are often too close to the problems at hand without the diversity of the entire population. With regard to the bumper section clarity example, I think the GDC was confident within their small community that it was perfectly clear. They all discussed it amongst themselves and agreed that the wording was appropriate for release. It is likely another small committee would have felt the same way.

I think the GDC does a good job at planning games with the resources and time they are given. The GDC is also appropriately open to constructive community feedback.

[BenX02]

I like your ideas. And I think I agree with the flaw you pointed out.

I was confused for a second, because anyone who is a gamer knows that GDC (game developer's conference) was last week, so I thought you were talking about that. :D

[smurfgirl]

As other posters have pointed out, many members of the GDC are or have been involved with a team. When designing the game, their insight is often much deeper than we realize. While we may complain about certain attributes of a game each year, the small inconveniences we may face in the short term often have a greater purpose to educate us in the long run. The games that the GDC designs are always well-thought out, but it is only natural that tens of thousands of smart high school students may have a few questions about each year's new game. The GDC does take feedback from the FIRST community- think about how rules change during the build season, or how they ask for game ideas each year. I wouldn't say that there is a fundamental flaw with the GDC, they do a great job pleasing the vast majority of the thousands of people involved in FIRST each season.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Your proposal intrigues me, not to be too critical but I have a few questions.

How does introducing more people solve the problem? I know you may think that more brain power will result in more clear rules but this rarely is the case. In fact, introducing more people will cause rules to become more unclear because you will have several different voices instead of one unified voice.

What makes the head coaches of the Champion teams qualified to do this? I know that on RUSH (I use it as an example due to my experience with them) the head coach, Mrs Kyle Hughes, is a wonderful leader and strategist but can't even drill a hole properly (no offense Mrs Hughes, Im just making a point) And on some teams the head person is brilliant mechanically but doesn't understand strategy to save their life. You need people who can do both, or at least a committee containing both types of people. Really the problem here comes down to, who do you pick to be on this committee?

No matter how many people you have go over the rules do you honestly think that 1700 teams with some of the brightest engineers and students in the world can't find flaws?

More committees sounds like how the US makes laws, I dont want to get a rule manual that is as long as some of the bills that go through Congress. Also, if I ever hear a rule read something like the following I will cry.

"The robot put on the field and operated by the team which will hitherto be referred to as "The Robot" shall not weigh more than 120 lbs excepting regulation bumpers (see Rule 174.3 A) and a regulation batter (see Rule 258.96 R) and shall not exceed the starting dimensions 28" x 38" x 60". The Robot may extend outside of these starting dimensions provided it follows the rules in Appendix E(Extending Mechanisms)"


In all honesty though, more committees involved the more the rules could start sounding like lawyer-eese.

Now, keep in mind, those are just concerns that come to mind, Im not saying they cant be addressed or that your solution won't work. In fact, I applaud you for having the courage to come forward and propose a solution instead of sitting back and complaining impotently.

[oddjob]

As others have stated, it's complicated.

I'd like to see a game where the running score is the actual score when the siren sounds, including penalties which can be posted in real time. This years game score at times seemed to come out of a random number generator run after the game ended. It takes away a lot of the end of game drama when the score isn't real. Hopefully the GDC will keep that in mind for future game design.

I don't know how the GDC works. Rather than be concerned with who is designing the game, it would be interesting to know what the rubrics are. This years game was technically interesting but the scoring was not accurately reported in real time. Autonomous mode was more or less unimportant. The end of game supercells were important to the scoring but kind of got lost in the normal game activity. The game needed more visual "wow" factor.

Maybe this thread was started because this years game was not up to previous years standards? That's my contention. The enduring way to fix that is by addressing the base criterion to which the game is designed. Define what is important for the game, for this year and all years, then the game has to conform to that. It's not enough just to have an autonomous mode and end of game bonus period, they need to really POP.

[Anders Horn]

I'd like to see more rules where they state the intent. It is harder follow the intent of the rules when many times I have to guess the purpose.

[kapolavery]

As others have stated, it's complicated.

I'd like to see a game where the running score is the actual score when the siren sounds, including penalties which can be posted in real time. This years game score at times seemed to come out of a random number generator run after the game ended. It takes away a lot of the end of game drama when the score isn't real. Hopefully the GDC will keep that in mind for future game design.



i totally agree..
real time scoring was down at our regional.. and not knowing what the score was till we were off the field and back in our pits kinda took away the excitement.. i remember just staring up at the screen waiting for the score and i was in the way of another team tryna get there robot to the field haha

but i liked the aggressiveness and fast paced action this years game provided..
it showed me that you dont need an offensive robot to win. esp since we have human players involved.

[dlavery]

I guess I will speak up on this one too.

First off, the postulate by the original poster is flawed. The FRC Game Design Committee does indeed include significant representation by senior mentors associated with long-term veteran teams, and has ever since the GDC was first formed. Over 50% of the GDC membership (including myself, Vince Wilczynski, Jeremy Roberts, and Aidan Browne) is actively involved with current teams. Other members of the group have previously been involved with teams, even though they may not be currently involved.

With regard to the formation of a "Game Approval Committee," that is a function that (as Rich Kressly notes) also already exists. While not using that particular sobriquet, there is a group that takes a look at the game and rules each year as they are being developed by the GDC, and provides feedback in several different areas.

I am not saying that the ideas of the original poster are not worth consideration, but rather noting that both that particular problem and solution have long ago been addressed and factored in to the current process. The issue is that the meta-problem he describes ("from the perspective of the teams, the game experience should be improved") is much more complex than might initially appear.

There are many, many constraints associated with the design of the game each year that may not be readily apparent. As noted above, many members of the GDC bring their team experience to the group. They are there specifically to use that background when developing the game. But they recognize that as part of the process, some compromises must be made to balance out competing requirements.

Each year, the GDC attempts to design a game that is a "best fit" solution for the constraints (both formal and informal) that are delivered from the teams, the sponsors, the audiences, the FIRST Board of Directors, the venues, the unions, the shipping companies, the available budget, the KOP suppliers, the event managers, the Regional Directors, the FIRST staff, the show producers, the media representatives, the FRC founders, and several other sources. Many of these constraints are self-competing, if not completely mutually exclusive. The net result is that the "perfect" solution space in which all constraints are satisfied and all parties are happy is virtually non-existent.

So, to be blunt, we don't even try for that. We try for a compromise solution that appropriately balances the prioritized needs of all the stakeholders. But we have a (I believe, healthy) recognition that whatever solution is developed, no matter how optimal, will probably never quite be viewed as "perfection" when examined from any one particular customer viewpoint. Each year, we expect that each customer constituency will find a shortcoming in the game when viewed from their particular vantage point, and they will let us know about it. We take that information and listen to it carefully, and factor it into the process - either for the current year, or the next year. We do constantly try to improve the process, we try to reduce the size of the "dissatisfaction space," and we try to respond to the perceived flaws of the overall experience (for the teams and ALL of the FRC customers). But while that is happening, we also ask that everyone recognize that their requirements are not the only requirements.

-dave


.

[AdamHeard]

I think the only flaw with the GDC is only one member is known to be able to consume inhuman amounts of Krispy Kremes in an inhuman amount of time.

[ScottOliveira]

I'd like to see more rules where they state the intent. It is harder follow the intent of the rules when many times I have to guess the purpose.

I do agree with this, and feel it would help development early in the season, so that you can focus on what is allowed and isn't more independently, and spend less time waiting for team updates and GDC rulings.

That being said, the GDC does an excellent job of answering questions and updating the game, and does well in providing a fairly clear and concise set of rules.

As far as the original idea, of creating a GAC, this would likely only make the process harder. Too much bureaucracy stifles progress, and makes it harder to fine tune the game before release. And while more people might suggest things they think would improve the game, people disagree. So this group making the game more fun for some would make it less fun for other. There is no simple solution, however the GDC does a good job of getting a solid game each year.

[rspurlin]

As is usual, almost every time I can add something I find that Dave Lavery had gotten there before I can post. And while I think almost any of Dave's posts can be immensely illuminating, the one just above deserves special mention. I've had game discussions with many of the GDC members and in doing gained an insight into how difficult the job really is. I don't think they have yet designed a perfect game and don't really expect them to succeed, even though I'm sure at some of them have that as a goal each year. It sometimes seems as if the major complaints from the previous year are corrected at the expense of some other aspect. I've had my share of 'what were you thinking?' discussions with some of these individuals. As long as it's a genuine question and not just complaining, I get a reasoned answer. It's not always one I agree with, but at least I've gained some insight.

Let me offer one other way to gain some insight to the process: Design a game yourself. We do this every year as part of our Fall training for new team members. They use VEX kits to play a 2 on 2 FIRST style game on Parent night after a short 'build season'.

So in designing your game, remember that you need a field that is easily and inexpensively constructed, game pieces that are easy to find. Robots should be able to manipulate them, but not too easily. The game rules need to be complex enough to challenge the participants and simple enough that they can be grasped by the audience quickly. The game has to be playable by the most basic of bots (think squarebot in the VEX world) yet difficult enough to challenge experienced builders. Avoid judgment calls by the referees. And whatever you do, don't appear to have the slightest hint of any previous game whatsoever.

And that doesn't even touch on all the issues Dave brings up.

Personally I think one of the hallmarks of FIRST has been consistently well designed games through the years. My congratulations and thanks to the members of the GDC.

[rick.oliver]

... The net result is that the "perfect" solution space in which all constraints are satisfied and all parties are happy is virtually non-existent ...

Besides, in this world, perfect would be boring and there would be nothing to debate.

I appreciate the excellent work done by all involved with F.I.R.S.T. and I appreciate that they listen to the community and respond.

[MrForbes]

We hear from the CD GAC from January thru April :)

[Justin Montois]

I really don't think a GAC needs to be implemented. I think that the game goes through several revisions before we ever see it and a lot of the Quality Control is almost done. What I would like to see is some way for the GDC to foresee possible problems that can only be seen through gameplay.

Watching kickoff and seeing Aidan reading the newspaper talking about how few penalties would be called made me so happy. Yet somehow this game seems to be one of the most penalty filled yet. Why? The Human players. Worst of all, I think in most cases these penalties could be largely avoided if someone was responsible for making these small subtle changes.

For Example...
1. Penalty for the human player breaking the plane of the porthole in the outpost.
There should have been some sort of "airlock" device attached to the hole to render this penalty moot. Human player sets the ball in and pushes some sort of lever to push the ball out. The penalties from this should not influence matches, but they do.

2. Penalty on human players touching the balls .5 seconds or so before the match starts.
I have to blame this one the lack of uniformity about how a match is started. Game Announcers would say 3....2....1...GO! But GO! didn't actually mean go and human players would grab balls a little early. I saw this called at GTR a number of times. If GO doesn't mean GO then don't say it. It should be 3.....2.....1......(Match Starts with the "Charge" sound).

3. Penalties on human players for "touching" the super cell early.
This cost us one match because our human player touched the super cell around the 25 second mark on accident. Never removed it form the rack, just placed his hand on it for a second. Is that really worth a 20 point penalty? Especially when the rules say nothing about "touching" only REMOVING?

Now I know it's easy to say "well the human players should know the rules and therefore avoid them." I agree with that to an extent, but if small changes can be made to easily ELIMINATE them, then I think it should be done. It's these kinds of things that bring down great games. And they wouldn't involve huge rule changes. It's this subtle fine tuning that we are missing IMHO.

[Cory]

I really don't think a GAC needs to be implemented. I think that the game goes through several revisions before we ever see it and a lot of the Quality Control is almost done. What I would like to see is some way for the GDC to foresee possible problems that can only be seen through gameplay.

Watching kickoff and seeing Aiden reading the newspaper talking about how few penalties would be called made me so happy. Yet somehow this game seems to be one of the most penalty filled yet. Why? The Human players. Worst of all, I think in most cases these penalties could be largely avoided if someone was responsible for making these small subtle changes.

For Example...
1. Penalty for the human player breaking the plane of the porthole in the outpost.
There should have been some sort of "airlock" device attached to the hole to render this penalty moot. Human player sets the ball in and pushes some sort of lever to push the ball out. The penalties from this should not influence matches, but they do.

2. Penalty on human players touching the balls .5 seconds or so before the match starts.
I have to blame this one the lack of uniformity about how a match is started. Game Announcers would say 3....2....1...GO! But GO! didn't actually mean go and human players would grab balls a little early. I saw this called at GTR a number of times. If GO doesn't mean GO then don't say it. It should be 3.....2.....1......(Match Starts with the "Charge" sound).

3. Penalties on human players for "touching" the super cell early.
This cost us one match because our human player touched the super cell around the 25 second mark on accident. Never removed it form the rack, just placed his hand on it for a second. Is that really worth a 20 point penalty? Especially when the rules say nothing about "touching" only REMOVING?

Now I know it's easy to say "well the human players should know the rules and therefore avoid them." I agree with that to an extent, but if small changes can be made to easily ELIMINATE them, then I think it should be done. It's these kinds of things that bring down great games. And they wouldn't involve huge rule changes. It's this subtle fine tuning that we are missing IMHO.


The human player rules are exceedingly simple. If your human player can't follow them and constantly gets penalized, I think that's a human error and not a flaw in game design. It's really not difficult for the human player to NOT get penalized.

[Justin Montois]

The human player rules are exceedingly simple. If your human player can't follow them and constantly gets penalized, I think that's a human error and not a flaw in game design. It's really not difficult for the human player to NOT get penalized.

I don't disagree with you, all I'm saying is that there are changes that can be made to make these a non-issue.

[GaryVoshol]

Yet somehow this game seems to be one of the most penalty filled yet.How soon we forget. I call to your attention "impeding", "interfering with hurdling" and "breaking the plane".

Why? The Human players.That I do agree with - almost all penalties are called against human players. But still they average far fewer; many matches in a row can be run without penalties. Last year it was the rare match that went without a penalty, and most had multiple penalties.

[Justin Montois]

How soon we forget. I call to your attention "impeding", "interfering with hurdling" and "breaking the plane".


lol, I know what you mean. That's why I called it ONE of the most penalty filled yet. ;)

[colin340]

I really don't think a GAC needs to be implemented. I think that the game goes through several revisions before we ever see it and a lot of the Quality Control is almost done. What I would like to see is some way for the GDC to foresee possible problems that can only be seen through gameplay.

Watching kickoff and seeing Aiden reading the newspaper talking about how few penalties would be called made me so happy. Yet somehow this game seems to be one of the most penalty filled yet. Why? The Human players. Worst of all, I think in most cases these penalties could be largely avoided if someone was responsible for making these small subtle changes.

For Example...
1. Penalty for the human player breaking the plane of the porthole in the outpost.
There should have been some sort of "airlock" device attached to the hole to render this penalty moot. Human player sets the ball in and pushes some sort of lever to push the ball out. The penalties from this should not influence matches, but they do.

2. Penalty on human players touching the balls .5 seconds or so before the match starts.
I have to blame this one the lack of uniformity about how a match is started. Game Announcers would say 3....2....1...GO! But GO! didn't actually mean go and human players would grab balls a little early. I saw this called at GTR a number of times. If GO doesn't mean GO then don't say it. It should be 3.....2.....1......(Match Starts with the "Charge" sound).

3. Penalties on human players for "touching" the super cell early.
This cost us one match because our human player touched the super cell around the 25 second mark on accident. Never removed it form the rack, just placed his hand on it for a second. Is that really worth a 20 point penalty? Especially when the rules say nothing about "touching" only REMOVING?

Now I know it's easy to say "well the human players should know the rules and therefore avoid them." I agree with that to an extent, but if small changes can be made to easily ELIMINATE them, then I think it should be done. It's these kinds of things that bring down great games. And they wouldn't involve huge rule changes. It's this subtle fine tuning that we are missing IMHO.


Why keep HP errors a part of First ??? There confusing hard to enforce and just take the refs eyes of the robots.
The announcer starting /counting down to the end is just confusing and often misleading.

The GDC does a fine job but i think they need more input from refs and drivers!!

[EricH]

The GDC does a fine job but i think they need more input from refs and drivers!!I believe that Championship Head Ref Aidan Browne is in fact on the GDC. That should be enough ref involvement, as I understand the head refs talk to each other throughout the season. (I also seem to remember somebody saying that he'd been complaining a bit about the 2008 game from the ref's view...)

As for drivers, there are ways to provide feedback. For example, CD. Or team reps at team forums.

[Eugene Fang]

The human player rules are exceedingly simple. If your human player can't follow them and constantly gets penalized, I think that's a human error and not a flaw in game design. It's really not difficult for the human player to NOT get penalized.

This I agree with. The rules are very simple and human players should be able to follow them properly.

However, the issue I have seen multiple times is that when, before the match even starts, a human player is already holding a moonrock, yet the referee standing next to him/her and doesn't tell them that they will get a penalty. Then, when the round starts, the human player immediately receives a penalty.

I agree with Cory that the human players shouldn't make the mistake in the first place, but if they do and the round hasn't started yet, why can't the referee inform them that what they're doing is against the rules?

Just my $0.02

[waialua359]

We hear from the CD GAC from January thru April :)

Mr. Forbes,
The best response in this thread! :D

[antoineft]

Thanks for all the great responses. I would like to apologize for not knowing the extent to which the GDC was involved with the teams as mentors. I had done a few searches but couldn’t find much in terms of who makes up the GDC or how it runs and I’m glad that has been cleared up.

Can we please keep this thread on track though. We could all start posting about specific points regarding this or other years game rules that we feel need improvement, and then this would run on forever and not accomplish very much.

I completely agree with that fact that there are many facets to designing a game each year that have nothing to do with the game itself and more to do with just the logistics. Again, I don’t envy the position of the GDC in having the tough task of trying to please so many people and I completely agree that they do an amazing job each year! But as with anything else in life, there is always room for improvement.

I love the CD community for its openness, and I agree that we are already a Game Approval Committee from January-April but no matter what we say after kick-off, there is no way to make any major revisions to the game. It would just create too much havoc and even more complaints which is why I think there needs to be something before that.


With regard to the formation of a "Game Approval Committee," that is a function that (as Rich Kressly notes) also already exists. While not using that particular sobriquet, there is a group that takes a look at the game and rules each year as they are being developed by the GDC, and provides feedback in several different areas.

I would also be interested to know more about the current approval process that Dave mentioned. Since we have established that experienced mentors already sit on the GDC, maybe the best course of action is to form an official Game Approval Committee composed entirely of current active mentors but only present the finished game to them 1 month before kick-off. Yes I know the game may not be 100% ready for presentation at that point but I’m sure it would be close enough.

Is anyone going to tell me that if for example on December 5th, Andy Baker, Karthik, JVN, and a few other select individuals were to get the full game announcement, that they wouldn’t be a huge benefit to its final release? They could serve as their own sort of beta team looking at the game from an open and unbiased point of view.

I am only one person with one idea, but keep the comments coming. I’m sure as a community we can move forward to create a solution here that would benefit FIRST as a whole.

[JaneYoung]

I always read Dave's posts 3 or 4 times (minimum and initially) to absorb the full impact/implications/effect. He has given us enough information to know that there is a process in place that addresses your concerns and that there has been.

The more people and committees that are a part of the process that are disclosed to the general public and to the customers, the more that opens more cans of worms and burdens the process of game development, in my opinion.

The GDC is criticized enough without adding a known GAC that would open itself to the same, often ugly, commentary that the GDC faces year after year. I am often appalled by the arrogant assumptions of folks who jump on some sort of band wagon about the game, the game development, or the rules, without studying them, doing some research, or following proper channels. It isn't necessarily the questions or suggestions, it is is how they go about it and the tone used. It would be awful to see a known GAC go through this same thing. And, I have a feeling that along with the brilliant minds who have a wealth of experience, separately and together, that you have mentioned in your posts, that the GDC has access to others of this same sterling caliber. I trust that.

Finally, any suggestions that you are serious about should be discussed and addressed in the forums in the FIRST website or sent to FIRST.

.02,
Jane

[EricVanWyk]

I always read Dave's posts 3 or 4 times (minimum and initially) to absorb the full impact/implications/effect. He has given us enough information to know that there is a process in place that addresses your concerns and that there has been.

And I read Jane's 4 or 5 times :)

The initial post was of the form "I have identified a cause for a problem, here is a solution to that cause". Dave's reply was "The solution you recommend is already in place."

However, you believe that the effect of that cause is still happening. Can we talk more about the effect, without talking about gritty details or making sweeping generalizations? I know it is a fine line.

For example: "I believe that penalties are a recurring shortcoming. The GDC/GAC should work to ensure that accidental penalties are minimized, so that penalties only occur when someone intentionally violates a rule." The example is pie-in-the-sky (we can't install intent monitors on the players) and is by no means perfect. However, it is a more accessible form of "Breaking the plane last year" AND provides a line in the rubric that the GDC can use to determine how well they are weighting your needs.

[rspurlin]

This I agree with. The rules are very simple and human players should be able to follow them properly.

However, the issue I have seen multiple times is that when, before the match even starts, a human player is already holding a moonrock, yet the referee standing next to him/her and doesn't tell them that they will get a penalty. Then, when the round starts, the human player immediately receives a penalty.

I agree with Cory that the human players shouldn't make the mistake in the first place, but if they do and the round hasn't started yet, why can't the referee inform them that what they're doing is against the rules?

Just my $0.02
Having been a ref in previous years, I can tell you that on practice day, you'll get a lot of this, plus the matches don't count. On Friday, In early matches we always did try to remind the drive teams, not just about HP rules, but also driver zone, touching controls by a coach, etc. At what point do you suggest that refs expect the players to have learned the rules? What sports are you aware of that the refs review the rules with the players before each play? Please remember that the refs are doing lots more than looking for penalties while a match is not running. It could be that the ref, though standing next to the player, is focussed on something else and not noticing the potential penalty.

As scorekeeper/field power this year, I watched one human player throw three of four empty cells over the outpost shield in the first 30 secs of an elimination match. Is it the refs fault for not reminding him not to do this?

I'll apologize in advance for those who think my tone is too strident; It's not intended to be so. But it seems a bit unfair to me to place all the blame on a volunteer who may not live and breathe the game the way the team members usually do. Also wrapped up in my frustration is team members watching from the stands who complain about the drive team not doing something when the action they desire is illegal. As a mentor of a team, one thing I constantly stress is a thorough knowledge of the rules by all team members.

As a ref, I always hated calling these sorts of penalties and generally like the idea of making them impossible to occur (don't get me started on the incursion rule from Aim High). The reality is that cost, complexity, logistics and other factors sometimes make it impossible to do so, especially when such human player errors are part of the game and do in some way reflect real life issues.

[rspurlin]

Is anyone going to tell me that if for example on December 5th, Andy Baker, Karthik, JVN, and a few other select individuals were to get the full game announcement, that they wouldn’t be a huge benefit to its final release?
When I first read this sentence, I read it as these people getting a huge benefit for their teams by getting the game early. In fact, though that is not what you wrote, it is the fear that FIRST has in increasing the number of individuals who know what the game details are. Perhaps you have not yet encountered it, but there are a few individuals involved with teams that are driven to win and would think nothing of starting to work on their robot design in early December. Let me be clear that I am not suggesting that any of the individuals you named are so morally challenged; I think that Andy Baker probably did know at least some details before kickoff since his company supplied the wheels.

I would also be surprised if every detail were finalized that early. From discussions I've had with GDC members, I know they are constantly reviewing the game and trying to balance it the best they can. They do this with lots of feedback, best offered constructively. Perhaps I just don't see enough flaws in this year's game, or previous ones I've been involved in, to warrant another committee.

Having re-read your OP, please offer as constructive feedback, publicly or privately to the GDC, specifically which rules you feel are wrong, what you would propose to change and why. I feel certain they will value your comments and reflect on them as they design the 2010 game. I have no doubt that you have heard other people at regionals complain about rules. About the only prediction I can make with some certainty is that if we allowed your rules to supersede the GDC's version, we would still have complaints. I think your biggest surprise might be that they would come from some of the same people.

[nlknauss]

I completely agree with this statement by Jane and I'm sure many of you often have the same gripes with this. As Dave pointed out, there are so many different factors involved with designing, planning, and implementing the game they need to have a GAC built into the GDC. And really, not every customer is going to be satisfied everyone the first weekend in January because the game changes every year. Year to year, there are different factors and outside influences because the resources change and because ALMOST everything is completely rewritten. We're all pretty much use to the way baseball, football, and hockey are played because the rules and resources of those games have been pretty much the same since we've known them. The FIRST community is lucky to have the experience of a GAC built into the GDC so that we can have a new game every year and keep the challenges coming.

I am often appalled by the arrogant assumptions of folks who jump on some sort of band wagon about the game, the game development, or the rules, without studying them, doing some research, or following proper channels.

Hah! This is another good one Cory. It's great having the human element in FRC games because there's always a human element in technology and it adds excitement to the game. We can't always interact with machines through a joystick or game pad!
The human player rules are exceedingly simple. If your human player can't follow them and constantly gets penalized, I think that's a human error and not a flaw in game design. It's really not difficult for the human player to NOT get penalized.

[antoineft]

However, you believe that the effect of that cause is still happening. Can we talk more about the effect, without talking about gritty details or making sweeping generalizations? I know it is a fine line.

For example: "I believe that penalties are a recurring shortcoming. The GDC/GAC should work to ensure that accidental penalties are minimized, so that penalties only occur when someone intentionally violates a rule." The example is pie-in-the-sky (we can't install intent monitors on the players) and is by no means perfect. However, it is a more accessible form of "Breaking the plane last year" AND provides a line in the rubric that the GDC can use to determine how well they are weighting your needs.

Wow Eric, I think you hit the nail on the head here exactly. This is pretty much exactly what I am getting at and the very reason I have started this thread this year specifically. I (and others) do see the same recurring problems in games and I'll point to the 2 biggest ones that would have the greatest impact if improved:

1) Reduce accidental penalties (human or robot), its one of the most discussed topics for a reason. A large number of the penalties both this year and in past years were against humans/robots that are absolutely not trying to break the rules in the first place. I don’t think I saw any driver/autonomous code purposely trying to go backwards around the track in Overdrive last year, but how many penalties were there for it?

2) Ensure that the game scoring is easily understandable and evident so that newcomers and spectators can readily understand it. If we want the status of this sport to grow on the world scale and raise it to the level of elite sports (which I believe is entirely possible), this has to be followed. If the values we cherish and uphold in FIRST can be spread, it would seriously make the world a better place! This game is the vehicle we are using to get there so we better make sure it works for spectators.


Many would agree that these issues exist and have existed for a while. So they should be improving over time right? Well I would make the case that they haven’t, and especially in this years game it has gotten worse. So please don’t take this a bash against the GDC, I’m just trying to find a way to improve the situation.


Looks like the consensus is that an added committee would only complicate the matter, and I respect that. Maybe the best way right now to try and fix what I believe is an area for improvement, is to write to FIRST. So that is exactly what I will do! Thanks for all the input everyone.

[Tetraman]

1) Reduce accidental penalties (human or robot), its one of the most discussed topics for a reason. A large number of the penalties both this year and in past years were against humans/robots that are absolutely not trying to break the rules in the first place. I don’t think I saw any driver/autonomous code purposely trying to go backwards around the track in Overdrive last year, but how many penalties were there for it?

So are you saying that if I had the right argument last year, I could go over the line slightly, every time I needed to pull it off?

I understand what you are saying, but I don't agree at all. Every sport has a penalty system, and there are always games where those penalties cost the game. And those penalties are usually for the little things that really never actually effect the game.

[Jared Russell]

So are you saying that if I had the right argument last year, I could go over the line slightly, every time I needed to pull it off?

I understand what you are saying, but I don't agree at all. Every sport has a penalty system, and there are always games where those penalties cost the game. And those penalties are usually for the little things that really never actually effect the game.

There are plenty of sports that will allow you to commit otherwise "penalty-worth" offenses as long as they don't result in a perceived advantage for your alliance. The world's most popular sport (soccer) is a perfect example. So if you cross a line backwards to pick up a trackball, it's very different from a momentary violation as your bot tries to resume its course around the track.

Your point that every officiated sport ultimately has some sort of penalty structure and room for human error, though, is well taken.

[Lil' Lavery]

While large amount of penalties (accidental or not) are detrimental, I 100% agree with <G22> last year and how it was enforced. Refs should never have to guess at intent or impact of a situation. Rules should be black and white, gray areas lead to controversy and protests.
I'd much rather have a game with 30 black and white penalties per match than one that's controversial.