View Single Post
  #26   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 14-04-2011, 15:29
Tetraman's Avatar
Tetraman Tetraman is offline
FIRST on my mind
AKA: Evan Raitt
no team
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Rookie Year: 2002
Location: Manchester, NH
Posts: 1,322
Tetraman has a reputation beyond reputeTetraman has a reputation beyond reputeTetraman has a reputation beyond reputeTetraman has a reputation beyond reputeTetraman has a reputation beyond reputeTetraman has a reputation beyond reputeTetraman has a reputation beyond reputeTetraman has a reputation beyond reputeTetraman has a reputation beyond reputeTetraman has a reputation beyond reputeTetraman has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 3 Year FRC Cycle? - The CON's

1. The phrase "Build a robot in 6 weeks" will finally be meaningless, which is one of the great phrases in FIRST that is always overlooked. Granted the 6-week building period isn't really true to form as many teams can use off season projects to build and implement a chassis or system. However still teams are only given 6 weeks to build within a specific set of parameters is something that really knocks the socks off anyone who takes their first look at FIRST. "These high school kids built that robot in only 6 weeks?!" Having the same game repeated is like having a three year build season - much less impressive.

2. It's been said before but I'll say it again - Copycats. FIRST is about innovation, and rewarding innovation. However there is still a core group of FIRST teams that want to win a Championship more than they ever want to win Chairman's or Engineering Inspiration. And here is the kicker - look at this year's robots and you see we have copycating. However it's much different. Most all of them have parts and pieces that imitate 2007 robots, but with a different style of gameplay the arms and chassis will have differences in them. We already have robots that copy style, but with a 4-year difference I am more inclined to encourage archiving of designs and long-team Frankensteining than short-term.

3. Games with abusable loopholes (71 playing Zone Zeal, not really 469 playing Breakaway), dull action (Stack Attack), or constant penalties (pick a year, any year) can become a hassle to witness over and over again. Granted it will help the general public know the game better, but for the most part, the "general public" that come to see the competition are the player's parents and family members. And to be honest, if one reason why to implement this is for the general public to become more involved and understand the game, it's sorta insulting to the general public that they need an extra year or two to get a handle on the game rules. The key to fix this is in the design of the game itself (and I would be one person who would stand up and give 8 months of constant design for this effort, as will others, so don't say there just isn't enough people.)

4. It's a surrender to the fact that FIRST is more about the competition than what FIRST says it stands for. This change would say "We are going to make the competition more accessible to everyone". Isn't one of the things Dave Lavery always surprises everyone with is how unfair the competition actually is and that it's a good thing? Rookies ARE at less of an advantage but it's their need to overcome it. The game does change and teams must overcome it. The real test of FIRST is in overcoming the challenge. This change would eliminate half of that challenge and say the FIRST competition is easier to provide for than FIRST's goals: Real-world working mentors for every team, real-world experiences for every student, real-world opportunities to change the world.

This 3-year cycle would alter FIRST completely and I don't like it.
__________________
"For every great theory about design, there is a better and contradictory theory about design. And don't let the irony of that escape you."

Last edited by Tetraman : 14-04-2011 at 15:43.
Reply With Quote