Quote:
Originally Posted by Madison
I think it's interesting to see the different types of language people use to describe FRC games, events, etc.
Here, the original question uses the phrase "main event" to describe a single portion of the game. I wonder what series of events led him to believe that the frisbees were the 'main event'. Further, I wonder why he didn't realize that, for most teams at most events, the most straightforward path to victory was to excel in that 'main event'.
I think this points out that, despite the inference made in the question, the problem isn't with the game design, necessarily, but with how it is communicated to teams.
|
My thoughts exactly. I left a comment on the blog (exactly 600 characters) attempting to express this thought, but this post does a better job than I could. It seems like this mentor is frustrated about his team's performance and is lashing out at the game design for causing that. Yet, I bet if you counted every regional winner this year, less than 1/4 of them would have the ability to climb past 10 points, and less than half of them could floor load.
There is no "main event". There are a series of tasks you can do - you pick the ones that have the best effort to reward ratio for your team's resources and then excel at them. That's the formula to win, as long as you're good enough at whatever you choose to do. Choosing more tasks than you can handle is a common mistake that leads to a lot of overcomplicated robots and unfortunate seasons.
Perhaps FIRST could communicate better to teams that *no task is required*, but I personally didn't think it was at all ambiguous...
Honestly, the 2012 and 2013 games were extremely balanced. 2011 is a different story, obviously, but it's clear that the GDC learned a lot from that year.