Quote:
Originally Posted by joelg236
I'd actually prefer simpler games. I think 2012 did that well. What I don't want is easy games. The two concepts are very different.
|
Logomotion was not a very strategically deep game, but it took me a very long time to explain the game to any spectators my teams brought to events. The last two games are easy to understand, and difficult, but had different ways of displaying difficulty. 2012 was a subtly difficult game, with having to arc shots and compromising frame perimeter vs. endgame.
2013 had obvious challenges that allowed a lot of teams to focus efforts on completing simple tasks well while powerhouses could still build great robots that scored more points. 2013's frame perimeter rules, game piece rigidity, selectively open field, and smaller safe zones invited the most strategic depth we have ever seen in the 3v3 era, except maybe keeping track of the rack in 2007.
I think after making easy-to-understand games in 2010, 2012, and 2013, and the community's affinity to them over 2008, 2009, and 2011 will/did influence the development of the 2014 game. The increased importance the GDC has put on autonomous and the evening-out of the endgame with the general teleop period has also made the game a lot more exciting and has made teams consider more about their build to capitalize on autonomous points and time spent pursuing endgame points.
A game that could combine the strategic depth and universal team-by-team success we had this year coupled with near-perfect real-time-scoring would be more than ideal, it would be practically perfect. I was already happily surprised to see 2013 play out so much better than 2012, which I thought was the best game in the modern era.
I also believe it's become clear that FIRST defines its success by the satisfaction of not only its investors (sponsors), but also its customers/products (us), which is a belief I did not have until recently. That is the biggest success story of the year.