Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory
If FIRST got rid of the witholding allowance, as many in this thread seem to favor, you would absolutely see the ceiling come down.
We definitely would not have designed a 30 point climber if we knew there was no witholding allowance. We made substantial changes to the functionality of every system on the robot post build. Very few of those changes could have been done at the event with no witholding allowance.
I imagine many others would have designed different robots with less functionality as well. It may not be about the robot, but it's definitely inspiring seeing the robots that manage to do everything well, or be the absolute best at a few things. With less chances to tweak/upgrade/fix things, a lot of that goes away.
|
...so? All of a sudden, a two-level climb would be the amazing thing at the regional. The amazingness of a 30pt climb isn't simply because it is a 30pt climb, it's because it was very rare and very difficult to pull off under the current build-season ruleset. Shorten the season, and something slightly less amazing would become the amazing thing that'd get people off their feet (and, of course, the 1-2 teams that managed a 30pt climb in a 6-week strict build would be even more amazing).
If they extended the build season, you'd see more 30pt climbers, which would reduce the specialness of a 30pt climb, and then the inspiring thing would be someone doing it in like 4 seconds.
Of course, if they limited the build season or extended it, I'm sure the GDC would change the game rules slightly to make things a little easier or a little harder, and so the "most amazing" thing you could do on the field would still only be doable by 3-4% of teams.
Quote:
I'm lost in the comparison. Isn't the argument that tool/sponsor limits affect top teams because such teams take advantage of them currently? If so, isn't that the exact same case with the withholding allowance? It removes the exact same potential time from all teams, just like limiting tools remove the exact same tool options from all teams. Could you explain further?
I'd also like to point out that pulling the top down is not inherently relative to competitiveness. It could well be absolute: what if no one (ok, fewer, some miracle workers didn't need the extra time/allowance) had pulled off a 7 disc auto? Or a 12 second climb? It might not cut the competitiveness, but it cuts the inspiration. What if Einstein had looked more like Week 1?
|
I believe the withholding allowance is used by far more mid-tier teams than the other things I listed. Particularly in the context of whiny CD threads, that are always like "111/1114/254/987/25's ROBOT IS BUILT WITH SUPER-TOOLS BY ADULTS AT THEIR SPONSOR-DONATED METAL SHOP CAMPUS. BAN EVERYTHING THEY USE SO MY TEAM IS CLOSER". I've been on teams that always did pretty poorly with just one mentor and still used the withholding allowance and the added time that came with it. The withholding allowance is nowhere near being something only elite teams use. And in any case, unlike tons of money, big sponsors, or amazing tools which are harder to acquire, it is something that is available to every team equally. Removing it thus removes the same opportunities from every team equally.
As for the inspirationalness of 12-second climbs, see what I said above. There isn't anything inherent in a 30pt climb that makes it amazing, it's the fact that only a few percent of teams managed to pull it off. In a shorter build with somewhat-less-capable robots, whatever other thing that was only pulled off by 5% of teams would become the inspirational/aspirational things for teams to chase. If we gave every team a year, a 30pt climb would be an expected feature and wouldn't be inspirational at all.