Re: fundamental flaw with GDC?
 

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.

Re: fundamental flaw with GDC?
 

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

Re: fundamental flaw with GDC?
 

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.

Re: fundamental flaw with GDC?
 

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.

Re: fundamental flaw with GDC?
 

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.

Re: fundamental flaw with GDC?
 

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

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.

Re: fundamental flaw with GDC?
 

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

Re: fundamental flaw with GDC?
 

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!!

Re: fundamental flaw with GDC?
 

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.

Re: fundamental flaw with GDC?
 

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

Re: fundamental flaw with GDC?
 

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

Re: fundamental flaw with GDC?
 

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.

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.

Re: fundamental flaw with GDC?
 

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

Re: fundamental flaw with GDC?
 

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.

Re: fundamental flaw with GDC?
 

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.