Re: Problem with Penalties
 

And ALL of the major sports have the same sets of rules year to year, and only ONE gives point penalties in any way, shape or form. NONE of the other major sports has the same problems. What's the biggest recent rule change in football, the facemask penalty? The biggest one that really affected the game, the forward pass, was what, 60-70 years ago or more?

Now, what's the biggest rule change in FIRST? The game. When? Every January. Not like major sports at all.

Re: Problem with Penalties
 

No they don't. I just double checked that.

Re: Problem with Penalties
 

Which one doesn't, and where did you get the information?

Re: Problem with Penalties
 

Only one gives points? which one?
Basketball gives a free throw which is possible points
Hocky gives a penalty shot which is a possible point
Soccer gives a penalty shot which gives a possible point
Baseball can award extra bases which could add points
Only football does NOT give the oppertunity for scoring because of penalties and none give points outright.



You mean like baseballs rule about the order of the bases you need to run (enforces the "right way to run the bases)?
Or Hockeys offsides (so players cannot stay on the opposing side of the ice)?
Or soccers offsides (so players cannot stay on the opposing side of the ice)?
Or basketballs 25 second clock (hurries the game)?
Or footballs formation rules (Forces a standard way of playing)?


All sports have rules to enforce gameplay, just as FIRST does.

I know people don't like penalties, but without consequences (re:Penalties) there is no incentive to follow the rules.

I also understand that some believe that the penalty is too harsh, but the fact is that everyone knew the rules from day 1 (Kickoff). As such you should have planned accordingly, or changed what you were doing at the event to minimize or eliminate those penalties. The "problem with penalties" is not the game, nor the penalties ... it's those that could not (or would not) adjust to how the calls are being made (much like a pitcher needs to adjust to a strikezone dispite that it is clearly defined).

Re: Problem with Penalties
 

You are both right. The rules in major sports very rarely change, but it is not uncommon that they may tweak the rules couple of years.

There seem to be a lot of complaints about penalties and how proffessional sports don't have that problem. Whether they have the problem or not FIRST is way more fun and way more educational than any sport, and in my mind that is all that counts.

A bad day at FIRST is better than a good day anywhere else.

Re: Problem with Penalties
 

Golf. Lose a stroke for going out of bounds or in the water.

The other sports don't give penalties, they give chances to score to the opponents. (And it's pretty rare for a penalty kick in soccer, direct or indirect. It's usually a free kick to a teammate.)

Re: Problem with Penalties
 

Golf is a sport ?!?

I thought it was an exercise in frustration :P

Re: Problem with Penalties
 

If poker is a sport, then I would assume that golf (which at least involves walking) is one as well.

Re: Problem with Penalties
 

hmmm... After reading this thread again it seems to me that the "problem penalties," or should I say the most frustrating ones, have been those that were very easy to incur. Most of these, like the bumping in 2005, the "zones" in 2006, and G22 in 2008, involved the drive train entering "zones" or making contact with other robots at certian times.

Might it be fair to conclude that the GDC should avoid these types of penalties, or perhaps re-word them to penalize other robot functions?

Re: Problem with Penalties
 

I have been watching this thread with some interest. It is an intriguing discussion. But I do feel the need to jump in here for a moment. I would suggest that you might want to think through the wording of the above statement carefully. I would posit that it is incorrect for you to "conclude that the GDC should" do anything. It may be proper and appropriate for you to "conclude that we suggest to the GDC that" they consider these ideas. You must be aware that you have not constrained yourselves to all the restrictions and requirements that must be considered when designing a game for FIRST/FRC. The desires, interpretations, and considerations expressed herein are (for the most part) well reasoned and constructive comments. However, they are (for the most part) delivered from one particular viewpoint: that of a team participating in the competition. They (for the most part) do not incorporate the constraints or limitations imposed on the design of the game by the FIRST Board Of Directors, the event managers, the venues, the FIRST organization, the Founders, the Regional Directors, the liability lawyers, the IP sources, the KOP suppliers, the media interests, the great folks on the FIRST staff, the developers, the international partners, the financial officers, etc., etc., etc.

All of these groups levy requirements on the design of the game. Many of them are mutually exclusive. Frequently, we get constraints from within the same group that may conflict with one of their own previous requirements. Very few of them have been considered in the preceding discussion in this thread. It is only after you are aware of ALL these requirements, and can find a way to satisfy all of them (or fail to satisfy all of them equally, which is the more common reality) that you can conclude what should be incorporated into the game design.

Several channels have been established to gather game suggestions, desirements and requirements from the teams. They include the threads in the FRC Game Design forum on DC, the team forums, and the direct e-mail channels, to mention only a few. Please use them to let FIRST and the GDC know your CONSTRUCTIVE comments, feedback, ideas, and desires. I can guarantee that every one of them will be read and considered. But please be aware that just because it is read and considered does not mean that it will be incorporated into a future game. What appears to be a reasonable idea from the viewpoint of a team may be, unbeknownst to you, in direct conflict with some other hard requirement established by another part of FIRST.

-dave



.

Re: Problem with Penalties
 

Perhaps I'm biased, but I thought FIRST Overdrive was the best game we've had in years, partly because of certain rules and penalties. In specific, the hurdler interference rule really changed the way the game was played this season. Teams could design a robot to score points and be offensive, and know that they would be free of interference while trying to score. To me this is a very good thing. In the same way that you can't touch a basketball player while he's shooting, or a wide receiver while the ball is in the air, robots were free of contact while hurdling. At the Greater Toronto Regional, we saw teams who usually never score with any degree of effectiveness become offensive threats, since they were no longer subject to overt contact while trying to score. Teams could finally showcase the creations that they had worked so hard to build.

In terms of G22 being to punitive of a penalty, I'm going to have to disagree. FIRST Overdrive would not have worked as a game if teams didn't move around the track in one direction. G22 needed to be a harsh penalty to ensure teams didn't intentionally violate the rule to gain an advantage. Unfortunately, it did punish teams who accidentally broke the rule, even in the slightest amounts. To me the positive of keeping FIRST Overdrive as a flowing offensive game, outweighed the negative of those painful G22 calls.

Re: Problem with Penalties
 

You couldn't be more right with either of those statemants. G22 was a necessary penalty. I've seen many teams complain when they lost because of penalties. It isn't difficult to stop youself from going over the line backwards, so if you lose one match because of penalties you just be careful the next match and it shouldn't happen much in the future. My team had a swere drive that was fairly hard to control and we still very rarel had G22 violations. It is just a matter of the GDC wanting the game to be played a certain way and putting penalties in place to ensure that it is played that way. If Overdrive was much different that it is it probably wouldn't be as good.

I also agree that Overdrive is one of, if not the best, game FIRST has had. I am perfectly happy with the direction the games have been heading in the past few years. From my prospective the games keep getting better. I hope people posting on this thread are not discouraging the GDC from creating games the way they have been. People are so quick to criticize but not so quick to compliment. Making suggestions about what the GDC does seems out of place to me. Every year they make a great game and all people do is telll them what to do or criticize them. I would like to say thank you to the GDC and compliment them on another awsome game.

The GDC must know that the majority appreciates what they do, But it seems that people don't take the time to say what a great job they did.

I'm not saying discussions like this are bad but I feel like it has gone too far.